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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds public-domain scope and a useful return summary, but omits ordering, pagination, rate limits, and auth behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and the return-field summary earns its place. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 five optional parameters, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose and returned data adequately. The main minor gap is that it does not mention result ordering or pagination, though the schema's limit parameter partially covers quantity.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the general search scope, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: search the Artnap archive of paintings, drawings, prints and posters, with the return fields listed. It implicitly separates itself from get_artwork and the list_* tools by resource and action, but never explicitly names a sibling or draws the boundary.

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 implied by 'Search' and the filter-oriented schema, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to get_artwork or list_artists/list_museums for resolving names.

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