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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only, closed-world nature is covered. The description usefully adds the return shape ('compact records sorted by PPI'), but 'PPI' is unexplained jargon and there is no mention of pagination or how the limit default/max behave.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and searchable fields, with the return behavior following. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives a rough return contract, which is good. However, the undefined 'PPI' sort key and the silent limit/pagination behavior leave gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 50%: query is documented in the schema and further enriched by the description's list of searchable fields. The limit parameter has no description in either place, and the description does not disclose the default of 12 or the cap of 25, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus resource (works) and an enumeration of the searchable fields (title, artist, series, NASA ID, keywords). It is clearly distinct from get_work (single-item fetch) and list_series, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 phrase 'search works by title, artist, series...' implies when to reach for it (locating works by known attributes), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer get_work or list_series, and no exclusions.

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