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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies what fields are returned (template, brand, status, inputs for own drafts) and the purpose (to enable editing via generators). It doesn't describe the exact return structure, but for a read tool with no output schema, this is sufficient.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the key data returned and the purpose. It is efficient, though slightly long, but every clause adds information. No fluff or repetition.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and readOnlyHint, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, the caveat about own drafts, and the intended use case. It doesn't cover error handling or return format, but those are minor for a simple read operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it 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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter artifact_id, including its source (from list_artifacts or a generator). The description adds no additional detail about the parameter itself, but given 100% schema coverage and one simple parameter, the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('one generated image, email or PDF'), and the specific data returned (template, brand, status, and inputs for user's own drafts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_artifacts (which lists) and generator tools (which create) by focusing on reading a single artifact by ID.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when you have an artifact_id and need details of a generated item, especially to retrieve inputs for regenerating with changes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of siblings and the focus on reading vs. listing or generating is clear enough.

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