program_search_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond them: 'program_id: required, no default' repeats the schema's required list, and it says nothing about how filters, status, priority, or pagination behave or how large result sets are returned.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action and the key constrained parameters. The telegraphic style wastes no space, though it borders on under-specification rather than crisp concision.

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 eight parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output-schema explanation needed, this description is far too thin — a caller cannot form a valid filters value or know how starting_row/number_of_rows interact with the default 100-row page. It covers only the two required fields.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains artifact_type and program_id. The six other parameters — fields, status, filters, priority, starting_row, number_of_rows — get no semantics, and 'filters' in particular is an untyped array of objects whose shape is never hinted at.

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 specific verb and resource ('Search artifacts') and scopes it to 'a Spira program', which distinguishes it from siblings like mywork_search_artifacts and product_search_artifacts operating in other scopes. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the many alternative search/get tools (product_search_artifacts, product_get_artifact, mywork_search_artifacts) an agent must choose between. The agent must infer from the tool name whether this is the right search surface.

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