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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'principal-scoped' (an authorization scoping constraint) and 'bounded' (result-size constraint), which is genuine extra context, but it says nothing about error behavior when the artifact is missing or still pending.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, which is good front-loading, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being an efficient complete statement.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with four required, wholly undocumented parameters and no usage context, an agent cannot tell how to obtain a valid artifact_id or how this reads contextually against get_job_result and get_job_status.

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% and the description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever. The artifact_id's required 32-character hex pattern and the fixed schema_version/product constants are documented only in the raw schema, and the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Retrieve') plus resource ('Wave result artifact') with scope qualifiers ('one', 'principal-scoped', 'bounded'). It is distinguishable from get_job_status/get_job_result by the 'artifact' noun, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of prerequisites, no mention of when to prefer this over get_job_result or get_job_status, and no note on what state a job must be in for an artifact to exist.

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