explain_artifact

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it is offline, requires no key, describes the return JSON structure in detail, and warns that forgeries will explain cleanly. This goes beyond annotations to inform the agent of important behaviors.

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 a single paragraph that is well-structured and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then usage hints, parameter choices, return format, and a warning. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 that there is no output schema, the description fully documents the return JSON structure including fields like type, format, issuer, kid, issued_at, and payload_keys. It also covers the two parameter alternatives and warns about forgeries. The tool is relatively simple, and the description is complete.

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 coverage is 100% since both parameters are documented in the input schema. The description briefly restates the two input options (artifact_json or path) but adds no additional semantic meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: inspecting a signed artifact without verifying it. It uses specific verbs ('inspect') and identifies the resource ('signed artifact'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_receipt by emphasizing no verification.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (before verification to choose the right tool/key) and what it does not do (no signature check). It mentions that verification is done by verify_receipt, providing a clear alternative. It also notes that no key is required and it is read-only and offline.

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