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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds key behavioral info beyond the schema: the URL is 'private' and 'short-lived', which signals expiration and access restrictions. It does not detail error behavior or auth requirements, but the core fetch semantics are well disclosed.

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 concise, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the main action (Fetch) and includes the key qualifiers (private, short-lived) without any wasted words.

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?

For a simple one-parameter fetch tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and key behavior. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema will provide that, and the low complexity means no additional context is required.

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 single parameter artifact_id is fully described in the schema with an example format (art_...), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description merely repeats 'by artifact_id' and adds no additional semantic detail, so the baseline of 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?

Description uses a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (artifact metadata and private short-lived download URL), clearly scoped by artifact_id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_artifact_upload_requirements, which target upload requirements, not fetching an artifact.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have an artifact_id and need its metadata or download URL. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over get_artifact_upload_requirements or get_job.

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