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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds far more: an enumerated return payload, the conditional 'only for channels on sale' link, the null-when-unknown museum case, the artwork_not_found error, and a concrete 25000-character cap with a 'truncated' flag. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core identity and return contract, with no filler sentences. The parenthetical enumerations of link types are dense but each carries actionable meaning, though the prose is slightly heavy.

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 fully specifies the return shape, error condition, truncation behavior, and null cases. An agent knows what it will get and when it will be cut off, so nothing material is missing for a simple two-parameter reader.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description only reinforces how to obtain pk. The language parameter's effect on the returned url and links is never mentioned in the description, leaving its observable impact to inference.

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 scope: 'Full data of ONE artwork identified by pk'. The all-caps ONE plus the sibling set (search_artworks, get_detail_article, etc.) makes it immediately clear this is the single-object detail read, not a search.

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?

'use a search tool first to find the pk' gives an explicit prerequisite that routes the agent to the search_* siblings before calling this. It stops short of naming a specific search tool or stating when not to use this reader, so it falls just short of full alternative coverage.

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