Find artifacts

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds that results span published, offline, and platform-taken-down artifacts (i.e., not just live content) and that pagination continues via nextCursor. It stops short of stating default result count or ordering, which the schema partially covers.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the search scope front-loaded and pagination as the closing instruction. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, search keys, and pagination. The only gap is that 'platform-taken-down' has no counterpart in the status enum (published/unpublished), leaving the default filtering behavior slightly ambiguous.

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 limit, query, cursor, and status are already fully documented; the baseline is 3. The description only loosely reinforces query ('title or page ID') and cursor ('nextCursor') without adding format or edge-case meaning.

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 pair ('search and page through') and a specific resource ('the current user's ... artifacts') with the searchable keys (title or page ID) named inline. It is clearly distinguishable from single-item siblings like get_page, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 rather than stated: the mention of title/page ID search and 'Follow nextCursor to continue through large libraries' tells the agent when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is referenced.

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