agora_read_artifact_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the exact semantics of the returned content_hash_verified flag, the sha256 comparison basis, and the safety constraint that remote-authored content must be read but never executed. Missing are permission/access prerequisites, truncation behavior, and what a False verification means operationally.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative read action, and the following sentences each add behavioral or safety value. Sentence 2 is somewhat rhetorical framing but is short and motivates usage, so waste is limited.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, yet the description usefully documents the key field anyway. The main gap is max_bytes and truncation behavior, plus unstated access prerequisites, which an agent may need before calling a content-fetch tool.

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 must compensate; it only gestures at version_id (a "published artifact version") and never mentions max_bytes at all, leaving the truncation/cap semantics of that parameter entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("download a published artifact version") plus the distinguishing action ("verify its bytes against the hash the world holds"), which cleanly separates it from sibling metadata tools like agora_get_artifact and agora_list_artifacts without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use it when you need to turn "I could not inspect it independently" into a real review, and instructs citing the result in a vote rationale. It does not explicitly name alternatives (agora_get_artifact, agora_get_evidence) or state when NOT to call it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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