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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's contribution is the extra context it supplies: a cap of 10 results per model merged by relevance, and the exact result shape including that image_url is an absolute URL or null. Useful and above the annotation baseline, though it doesn't clarify whether the cap is a hard limit with no pagination.

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, the alternative follows, and the return-field list is dense but earns its place since there is no output schema. The field enumeration is long but each token is informative.

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 usefully enumerates every returned field and the result cap, and it routes to the right alternative. The remaining gap is query semantics (what constitutes a match, language effects), which an agent must guess before calling.

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% and both parameters (query, language) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no search-syntax detail (matching rules, multi-word handling) and never mentions the language parameter's effect on results.

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 resource — full-text search across artworks, artists, museums and articles at once — and the phrase "at once" plus the explicit contrast with search_sections_semantically separates it from the per-model search siblings and the semantic tools.

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 a positive trigger ("when you know a name or keywords and want the objects") and names one alternative with the condition that selects it (answer questions from texts → search_sections_semantically). It does not say when to prefer the narrower search_artworks/search_artists/search_museums/search_articles or search_objects_semantically, so routing among the remaining siblings is still partly inferred.

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