Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behaviors: the source defaults to the latest version, includeSource defaults to true, and embedded image bytes are omitted unless the version resource is used. It also explains the effect of versionId on source selection, adding substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, default behavior, and limitation/alternative. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, with no redundant or filler content. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key operational details: the set of retrieved data, state-safety, default behaviors, and the critical limitation about image bytes. For a tool with three parameters and a structured output, this is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating defaults for versionId and includeSource ('Source defaults to the latest version unless versionId selects another; includeSource defaults to true') and by noting the consequence of image omission. This goes beyond the schema's simple parameter descriptions, meriting a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Read one viewable artifact’s metadata, versions, visible review requests, threads, and optional source', which clearly states the verb (Read), the resource (viewable artifact), and the scope (one artifact). It distinguishes itself from list_documents by specifying 'one' and from mutation tools by stating 'without changing state'. The inclusion of specific items (metadata, versions, review requests, threads) further clarifies its purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage context: 'Read one viewable artifact...' implies use when needing details of a single artifact, and 'without changing state' explicitly excludes mutation use cases. It also provides an alternative: 'Embedded image bytes are omitted, so use the version resource when complete source is required.' This satisfies the when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.