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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it returns 'full content', supports retrieval 'by id, or by key+course', and frames the artifact as a 'prior deliverable'. This goes beyond simply restating the tool's name.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, and lookup methods; the second gives a concrete use case. Every word 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 the tool's simplicity, the existing output schema, and the annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to invoke it (by id or key+course), and when to use it. No critical gap remains for an agent to select and use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that artifact_id is an id-based lookup, while key+course form an alternative lookup path. This clarifies the relationship between three of the four parameters. auth_token is left unexplained, but its name and the context of a read operation make its purpose inferable.

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 'Fetch a saved Library artifact's full content' — a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('saved Library artifact'), and the scope ('full content'). It also distinguishes from siblings like list_artifacts (listing) and submit_artifact (writing) by focusing on retrieving an existing artifact's content.

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 explicitly says 'Use to pull a prior deliverable forward and build on it in a new chat,' which clearly indicates when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the use case is strong enough to guide an agent.

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