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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful output details (paths, hashes, media types, UTF-8/base64 content), but it does not disclose behavior such as what happens with binary files when includeBinary is false, or any limits. It is consistent with annotations, but not rich in behavioral context.

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 description is one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and return content. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, strong annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains return contents but does not explicitly state that omitting files returns all files or that binary content requires includeBinary=true; however, the schema provides these details. Sibling tools that might overlap are not addressed, so slightly incomplete for full context.

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 detailed descriptions for slug, files, and includeBinary. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely mentioning 'selected files' and 'UTF-8 or base64' which already appear in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the tool returns selected files from a published report, including paths, hashes, media types, and content. It uses a specific verb (return) and resource (published report). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like handover.get or handover.read_artifact, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'pull' and the resource 'published report', so an agent has no clear decision boundary.

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