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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating the content is complete and immutable, and that table artifacts return a redirect rather than direct content. It still omits details like size limits or auth requirements, but the key behavioral quirks are disclosed.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the important table exception. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema, full parameter coverage, and rich annotations, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It explains the main return shape at a high level and the table redirection. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying its relationship to artifact_get and artifact_get_content, but the essential behavior is covered.

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 artifactId and versionId are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 artifact metadata and complete immutable file content. It also clarifies a special case for tables, redirecting to table_get_rows. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like artifact_get and artifact_get_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 only explicit usage routing is for tables: they return a typed direction to table_get_rows. There is no guidance on when to use artifact_read versus artifact_get, artifact_get_content, or artifact_list. The implied use case is reading full artifact data, but alternatives are not addressed.

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