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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior by disclosing that artifacts in encrypted projects return encrypted:true with no body because the broker holds only ciphertext. That is a non-obvious edge case an agent must plan for. It does not cover auth or size/truncation behavior.

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, front-loaded with the verb/resource and the return shape, then the encryption caveat, then the REST mapping. No filler and nothing buried.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields and the one genuinely surprising return case (encrypted artifact with no body), so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains where the id comes from. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond 'by id', so the baseline 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 singular resource — 'Read one project ARTIFACT by id' — and enumerates the returned fields (title, body, author, time, project), which cleanly separates it from list_artifacts and post_artifact among the siblings.

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 single-resource framing implies 'use when you already have an id', and the schema description points at post_artifact/list_artifacts as the id source, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over list_artifacts or how to obtain an id. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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