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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does it well: it discloses the two critical behaviors — this NEVER returns the asset to the caller and NEVER stores anything — plus the required id formats. What it omits is the side-effect semantics of `force` and `show_user`, i.e. whether the display is suppressed or override-able.

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 core action and id formats come first, then each subsequent sentence is a single-purpose directive (don't inspect via view, don't store via view, don't re-show a fresh generation). Dense but zero filler, and the capitalized NEVER / Do NOT markers make the constraints scannable.

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?

Naming, routing, and the no-return/no-store contract are fully covered, and no output schema exists to explain. However, for a 6-parameter tool with 17% schema coverage, the meaning and effect of `force`, `show_user`, `return_image`, and `include_details` is absent, which an agent cannot infer safely.

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 coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate. It covers `artifact_ids` thoroughly with concrete id formats ('job:<uuid>#<index>', 'upload:<id>', https URLs), but the four booleans — `force`, `show_user`, `return_image`, `include_details` — are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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 (show assets inline to the user) and enumerates the accepted id formats. It actively distinguishes itself from three siblings by name — `inspect`, `ingest_url`, and `check_generation` — so the agent can route correctly without opening another 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 explicit when-to-use (show assets inline), when-not-to-use (do NOT call on a generation you just made, since check_generation already showed it), and the exact alternative for each adjacent need: `inspect` to view it yourself, `ingest_url` to persist an external image. Nothing is left to inference.

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