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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, adds substantial context: default source version, includeSource default true, omission of embedded image bytes, and limitation to 'visible' review requests. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, first gives the core purpose, second covers defaults, third a caveat with alternative. No redundant words.

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?

Touches on scope (viewable artifact), contents (metadata, versions, threads, review requests, source), defaults, and a known limitation (image bytes omitted) with an alternative. Output schema exists, so return format details are unnecessary.

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?

Schema already describes all 3 parameters at 100% coverage, so baseline 3 applies. Description reinforces defaults (includeSource true, versionId defaults to latest) but does not add significant new meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clear verb 'Read' plus resource enumeration (metadata, versions, review requests, threads, source) distinguishes this from list-heavy siblings like list_documents and list_threads. It also specifies scope ('one viewable artifact') and non-mutating nature.

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?

Provides explicit alternative: 'use the version resource when complete source is required' after noting image bytes are omitted. Implied usage context (read one artifact's full detail) is clear, though it doesn't contrast with every sibling tool.

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