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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return content — a license line limited to PD/CC0/CC BY plus where to verify it at the holding museum — which tells the agent what it will actually get.

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?

One compact sentence with no wasted words, and the key noun (license line for one artwork) is front-loaded. It is slightly terse and reads as a fragment rather than an actionable statement, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description does its part by explaining what the return contains (license line plus museum verification location). For a simple one-param read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing essential is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'id' as the Artnap artwork id. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 names the specific resource it returns (the license line for one artwork) and the license scope (public domain, CC0, CC BY), which is enough for an agent to tell it apart from get_artwork or search_artworks. It lacks an explicit verb ('get'/'retrieve'), reading as a noun phrase, so it falls short of the 5 criterion.

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 only implied: pass a single artwork id to get its license line and verification pointer. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no reference to the sibling tools it overlaps with (e.g. get_artwork).

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