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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds valuable behavioral context: ordering ('newest-updated first'), ownership filtering ('intentionally excluded'), and return content ('metadata and lifecycle counts without loading source'). 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, and every clause contributes meaning. It avoids redundancy and unnecessary detail.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior: what it lists, what it returns, and when to use an alternative. No significant gaps remain.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic meaning by clarifying the implicit parameter: 'this principal' (the authenticated user). Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so no further param details needed.

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 clearly states the tool lists artifacts owned by the principal, with specific scoping ('newest-updated first; account-visible artifacts owned by others are intentionally excluded'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing get_document for other artifact details.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use get_document for one artifact’s versions, reviews, threads, or source.' This contrasts with the current tool's scope and directs the agent to the appropriate alternative.

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