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

Annotations carry only readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavior on top: per-type return formats, draft watermarking, and the credit-based unlock flow for the clean copy. This goes well beyond what annotations reveal and contains no contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return formats, provenance, and watermark behavior — every sentence carries real information. The provenance sentence is slightly redundant with the schema description, but it reinforces sourcing for an agent scanning the description.

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 single-required-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint=true and no output schema, this is nearly complete: the description explicitly spells out return formats, compensating for the absent output schema. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior for invalid artifact IDs and the operational mechanics of the credit-based unlock.

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%; the schema already documents artifact_id as coming 'from a generator or list_artifacts,' and the description's third sentence repeats this nearly verbatim. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 — 'Return a generated item itself' — and sharpens the scope with the conditional 'where a YouSpot link cannot be opened,' which distinguishes it from link-returning siblings like get_artifact and share_artifact. The per-type format mapping (PNG, per-page images, text) further clarifies exactly what is returned.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: rendering content where a YouSpot link cannot be opened. It also documents parameter provenance (artifact_id from a generator or list_artifacts), which helps an agent source the input correctly. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, despite close siblings like get_artifact and share_artifact.

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