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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: match fields, return contents, newest-first ordering, permanent URLs, and the precise cursor/offset precedence rule. This is beyond what annotations alone convey and helps an agent predict results and pagination 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?

The description is short and information-dense. Each sentence adds value: scope of the archive, query/filter capabilities, result contents and ordering, and pagination. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 search tool with 8 optional parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description covers the essential semantics: what is searched, what can be filtered, what the results look like, and how paging works. The only notable omission is a direct mention of the limit parameter, but that is partially covered by the schema.

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 63% and the description compensates by defining query behavior (matches title, place, categories, tags, photographer), the role of filters, and the cursor/offset relationship. It does not explicitly mention the limit parameter, but the existing schema exposes default/max values, so the added semantics are still meaningful.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a named resource ('JENRIKS archive'), and describes what the query matches and how filters narrow. It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_latest_photo and random_photo, which are singular or random rather than archive-wide 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?

The context is clear: use this tool when you need to search or filter the archive, and the description explains the query/filter options and pagination. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_latest_photo or get_photo, but the search-oriented purpose and wording provide adequate guidance.

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