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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful return content (dates, number of works, Artnap page), but says nothing about matching semantics (case sensitivity, word-splitting), result ordering, or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the resource plus match criterion are front-loaded. It reads as a phrase rather than a complete sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned fields, which is the right call. However, for a search tool it omits result-cap behavior and matching rules, so an agent cannot fully predict the shape or size of results without trial and error.

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 coverage is only 50%: q is documented in the schema as 'part of the artist name', and the description's 'matches the words given' adds little beyond that. The limit parameter – which caps results at 50 with a default of 20 – is never mentioned in the description, so the pagination/result-size behavior is only inferable from type constraints.

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 concrete resource (artists in the Artnap archive) and the selection criterion (name matches the given words), and it names the fields returned (dates, work count, Artnap page). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_artworks and get_artwork by being artist-only, though it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_artworks (which presumably also accepts a query string) or list_museums. The only implied cue is 'name matches the words given,' from which an agent must infer substring name search. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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