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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety; the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond it: results are newest first, capped at 50, and include artifact_id, kind, title, status, and brand. It also clarifies that kind acts as a filter. No contradiction with annotations.

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 no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by return fields, limit, filter behavior, and usage trigger. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers return fields, ordering, limit, filtering, and when to invoke. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the kind parameter. It does by explaining that kind 'narrows it to one kind', giving the parameter functional meaning beyond the bare enum definition in 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 ('List'), the resource ('images, emails, PDFs and documents generated in the user's active space'), and the exact scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from singular get_artifact by describing a multi-item listing operation with ordering and limit.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it: when the user asks what they have generated or refers to an earlier artifact. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is concrete enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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