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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added signal is 'authenticated,' which hints at an auth requirement but never states whose credentials or what scope. Critically, it says nothing about the artifact 'stream' itself - whether it returns bytes, a signed URL, or chunked content, or any size/expiry limits.

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 single sentence is short but not concise in the useful sense: it is so compressed with unexplained jargon ('resolve,' 'first-party,' 'artifact stream') that it conveys almost no actionable information. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy.

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?

For a parameterized retrieval tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should carry the bulk of the explanatory load. Instead it omits the meaning of jobId, the nature of the returned artifact stream, and how this differs from the several sibling export/artifact tools, leaving an agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 sole parameter, jobId, is never mentioned in the description. The agent cannot tell whether jobId is an export job identifier, a research job identifier, or something else, nor how it relates to the artifact being resolved. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to 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?

The description pairs a verb ('Resolve') with a resource ('export artifact stream'), so the general domain is identifiable. However, 'resolve' is opaque (does it fetch metadata, bytes, or a URL?) and 'authenticated first-party' is unexplained jargon. It offers no differentiation from close siblings like evidence_get_export, evidence_get_export_manifest, or evidence_get_research_artifact.

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 guidance on when to call this versus evidence_get_export or evidence_get_export_manifest, nor any stated prerequisites such as needing a completed export job first. The agent must infer the position of this tool in the export workflow entirely on its own.

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