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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, read-only operation, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds that only 'authorized' artifacts are returned, which is useful access-control context, but it does not describe not-found/unauthorized behavior or any other operational details.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the operation, the resource scope, and the accepted identifier forms efficiently.

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 an output schema, full parameter documentation, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete for a simple one-parameter read tool. The only notable gap is that it does not explicitly route the agent away from similarly named sibling tools.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the artifactId formats (bare alias, ~agent/alias, _team/alias, page URL) in detail. The description repeats the same identifier forms without adding new syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read authorized artifact metadata') and the accepted identifier forms. The word 'metadata' implicitly distinguishes it from content-reading siblings such as artifact_get_content, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for retrieving metadata rather than content, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over artifact_get_content, artifact_read, or artifact_list. No when-not conditions or alternatives are named.

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