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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden yet only says it retrieves a list. It omits that the operation is read-only, that results are paginated via limit/offset, and what ordering defaults apply, all of which an agent needs with zero annotation coverage.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being efficiently complete, so it sits at the minimum viable level.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and all four parameters are documented in the schema. Still, with no annotations and no behavioral or usage context, the description is only barely adequate for an agent choosing among many sibling tools.

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%, with sort, limit, title, and offset all documented in the schema including the enum semantics. The description adds no parameter 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Получить список артефактов пользователя'), which identifies it as a read-only listing operation scoped to the user. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as list_articles, list_artifact_revisions, or search_artifact, leaving the agent to infer which listing tool applies.

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 description supplies no guidance on when to use this tool rather than list_artifact_revisions or search_artifact, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must guess the intended context from the name alone.

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