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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses what actually comes back: only the latest version's contents, and only for text formats (HTML, Markdown, SVG, CSV, JSON), which implies binary artifacts return metadata only. It does not state behavior for a missing slug or whether version history is exposed.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the return-content condition stated up front and the usage cue second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema and one fully documented parameter, the description covers purpose, return shape, and intended use well enough to call correctly. Only error/miss behavior for an invalid slug is unaddressed, which is minor for a read tool.

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?

One required parameter with full schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'by slug' restates rather than enriches the parameter — no format, case-sensitivity, or lookup-failure behavior is added. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Get one artifact by slug', with the added scope that latest-version contents are included for text types. This implicitly separates it from list_artifacts and search_artifacts, but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives a concrete call context: 'Use it to read earlier work before revising it', which anchors it in the revise loop alongside update_artifact. It offers no explicit exclusions or pointer to the list/search siblings for discovery-style lookups.

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