lc_get_artifact_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'request', implying read-like behavior, but does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 sentence, making it concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool but lacks completeness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, behavior, or provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The description does not explain the meaning of the two required parameters ('oid' and 'artifact_id'). Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate with any parameter details.

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 'Request original artifact payload or signed export URL' clearly states the action (request) and resource (artifact payload or URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lc_list_artifacts' (listing) and 'lc_get_payload_download_url' (getting download URL), though it could be more explicit about the difference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'lc_get_payload_download_url' or 'lc_list_artifacts'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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