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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting the V1 limitation and the persistent-URL behavior. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the intentional omission is stated concisely in the second sentence.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward read-only metadata tool, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, with no required parameters and no guidance on how to choose among filters, an agent may be uncertain how to construct an effective request.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the four parameters. However, it does not explain how session_id, artifact_id, filename, or limit are used, nor their relationships. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no parameter-level guidance.

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 identifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('session artifact metadata and persistent URLs'), making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from content-returning tools by explicitly stating that raw artifact contents are intentionally omitted.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need artifact metadata and persistent URLs, not raw contents. The 'V1 intentionally omits raw artifact contents' line serves as an implicit when-not, though it does not name alternative tools for fetching raw contents.

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