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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating what comes back (id, name, type, originating model, current version, parent document), which matters because there is no output schema; it does not cover pagination or auth requirements.

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 short sentences, zero filler: the scope and returned fields come first, then the actionable cross-reference. Every clause earns its place.

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, zero-required-param list tool, the description plus annotations plus a 100%-covered schema cover everything needed. Because no output schema exists, the field enumeration in the description usefully stands in for return-value documentation.

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%, so limit, document_id and workspace_id are already fully documented in the schema (including the 'omit = ALL workspaces' semantics). The description only alludes to document attachment via 'de qué documento cuelga' and adds no syntax or filtering detail beyond the schema, 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Lista los artefactos guardados del workspace') with the scope stated, and it enumerates the fields returned (id, nombre, tipo, modelo, versión, documento padre). This lets an agent distinguish it from the single-item sibling get_artifact without opening a 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?

The second sentence routes a follow-up action explicitly: to update an artifact, pass its id to save_artifact. That is a clear downstream-use hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance (e.g. versus get_artifact or search tools) for the listing itself.

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