Read artifact data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the result shape (collections vs. records) and the 'newest first' ordering, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or what an empty artifact returns — meaningful gaps for a records-listing read.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded before the returned shapes. It is slightly compressed to the point of being terse ('What people have saved in an artifact's page'), but nothing is wasted.

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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece — what the call actually returns (collections or records, newest first). Remaining gaps (pagination, volume, permissions) are minor for a simple two-parameter read tool whose annotations already signal a safe, idempotent operation.

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 both parameters are already documented in structured data, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'one collection's records' largely restates the schema's own 'Optional: one collection's records instead of the list of collections' and adds no naming format, matching rule, or error behavior.

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 names a concrete resource — what users have saved on an artifact's page, such as poll votes — and states the two shapes it can return (a list of collections, or one collection's records). The retrieval verb is only implied by the name/title rather than stated in the body, and no sibling is named, but the resource is specific enough to separate it from get_document or get_report.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'what people have saved in an artifact's page,' which tells an agent this is the tool for reading submitted/collected data rather than document content. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (does the caller need access to the artifact?), and no alternative tool named for overlapping cases like get_document.

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