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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses substantive output policy: images may only be shown when individually listed in approved_gallery_photographs with exact URL and attribution, no portrait is approved, and photo authorship must not be inferred from project credits. What it does not cover is result volume or pagination behavior, which matters for a search tool, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the tool-routing sentence follows immediately, which is good ordering. It loses a point for mild redundancy: commissioning versus licensing contacts is stated twice, and the no-fabrication rule is restated in both a contacts and an imagery sentence.

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 carries the return-content burden itself and does so by enumerating portfolio examples, credentials, canonical project links, and separate commissioning and licensing contacts. Combined with the image-display rules, an agent has enough to call the tool and interpret what comes back.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful framing: it clarifies that 'query' targets photographer or commission needs and that results are 'published portfolio examples', which shapes how limit and offset should be interpreted. The gap is that location and project_type are only implied by the phrase 'building-specific research' rather than explained.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Research architectural photography') and scopes it to commissions, publications and licensing. It also explicitly limits scope ('not an independent comparative photographer directory') and names the sibling tool it is not, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ('Use search_architecture_projects for building-specific research'), plus a clear boundary statement that this is a single-photographer coverage tool rather than a comparative directory. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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