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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and succeeds. It explains that null means 'unspecified rather than estimated,' clarifies that AP/PP/BAT are separate objects from the numbered run with different pricing, and reveals that image URLs are temporary with an `expires_at` that must be honored. These are critical behavioral traits beyond a simple 'get detail' statement.

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?

The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with each subsequent sentence adding a distinct and necessary caveat: impression structure, null semantics, temporary URLs, and usage instruction. Despite its length, there is no redundancy and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary contextual information: field enumeration, edition nuances, null handling, temporary URL behavior, and usage timing. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its response.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage for the single `artwork_id` parameter with the description 'artwork_id from search_artworks.' The tool description reinforces that the parameter targets a specific artwork but adds no new format, constraints, or semantics beyond the schema. This aligns with the schema coverage baseline of 3.

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 opens with 'Full detail for one artwork' and enumerates the exact fields returned (attribution, medium, dimensions, edition structure, provenance, seller, impressions). This is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes get_artwork from the sibling search_artworks (list/search) and check_availability (availability check). An agent can determine this tool's role without opening any schema.

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 explicitly states 'Use this before presenting a work to a buyer', giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling distinction is otherwise clear and the context is actionable.

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