Find artifacts

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and non-destructive; the description adds auth context (personal account required), scope semantics, public-result labeling rules, and the instruction not to treat public results as the user's own work or an empty list as auth failure. It also clarifies how to diagnose identity failures via connection. All behavior is consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Longer than typical, but every sentence carries a distinct behavioral fact; there is no filler. Purpose and usage are front-loaded, and caveats like owner-vs-visibility and auth failure are placed after the core semantics. Given the complexity of the tool, this length is justified.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states it returns identifiers and titles for downstream get_site/read/update calls. It covers search, listing, scope, auth, privacy, and failure handling, leaving no major decision point unaddressed for a remote-library search 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 already describes all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter interplay: query vs scope combinations, whether limit applies, and relationship labeling separate from visibility. It doesn't repeat tenant_id/share_token details, but the schema covers those, so this is sufficient.

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 action and resource: 'Find pages, reports, charts, prototypes and documents in the connected remote Artifact Site library.' It distinguishes itself from slug/URL-based lookups ('no artifact URL or slug is needed') and from filesystem tools, so an agent can tell it apart from read/get_site and local-file operations. The title is generic, but the description supplies the needed differentiation.

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 explicit use cases: 'show my artifacts', 'what have I published?', 'find last week's report'. It also provides a when-not: explicit local-file requests belong to filesystem tools, not this library, and notes that no slug is needed, steering away from read/get_site. It doesn't name each sibling, but the exclusion and purpose are enough.

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