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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by guaranteeing stable ordering (updatedAt desc, then ID desc) and complete offset continuation, but says nothing about result-set size, total counts, or behavior when filters conflict.

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 with zero waste. The pagination rule and the sort guarantee are both front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 present and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to explain continuation and ordering, which it does. Minor gap: it never clarifies the default scope (personal vs team vs workspace) when no filter is supplied.

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%, so all eight parameters are already documented, including offset as "the previous page's nextCursor". The description merely restates the offset/nextCursor relationship rather than adding format or precedence rules beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: "List owned or team artifacts". An agent can distinguish it from artifact_get or search, though it does not name the sibling alternatives (search, folder_list, trash_list) that also surface artifacts.

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 implied by the pagination instruction ("Follow nextCursor as offset"), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus search or folder_list, and no note on when the team/workspaceId filters are mutually exclusive beyond what the schema already says.

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