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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it returns content, and very long items are truncated to the first part, with query_document/summarize_artifact as the workaround. It does not mention any auth/permission requirement, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: eligibility, return behavior plus truncation escape hatch, and the negative routing. The triggering condition is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the structured fields.

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 spelled out, and the description still flags the truncation caveat. Combined with a fully documented single parameter and full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by stating the provenance of the id (from search_artifacts or an earlier result), which helps the agent know when it is even eligible to call the tool.

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+resource (open/read one specific artifact by id) and enumerates the artifact kinds covered. It also explicitly contrasts itself with search_artifacts, query_document and summarize_artifact, so an agent can pick it out of a large sibling list without reading the schema.

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?

Gives when to use it (user wants to read/open one specific item and you already have the id), where the id comes from (search_artifacts or an earlier result), and an explicit 'Do not use to find items' exclusion routing to search_artifacts. Alternatives for oversized content are named too.

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