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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are paginated and include preview URLs, but with an output schema present, the return-value claim is largely redundant and no auth or rate-limit context is added beyond what the schema's limit parameter already explains.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. Every clause 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?

With a full output schema, thorough annotations, and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to frame the tool's purpose, which it does. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to siblings, which is absent.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the anonymous-vs-bulk limit distinction and cursor reuse rules. The description's "by trade, product or words" restates the parameters without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Search RuneLore artwork") plus the three query facets, which lets an agent grasp the tool's role immediately. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like compose_preview or get_product_blueprint, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The search facets hint at how to query but not when this is the right tool versus get_product_blueprint or compose_preview.

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