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

Goes well beyond the annotations by enumerating the exact returned fields, documenting the artist_not_found failure case, and disclosing the 25000-character cap with a 'truncated' flag. That truncation behavior is the kind of non-obvious trait an agent cannot infer from readOnly/idempotent hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return contract, then the error and truncation caveats in a single dense block. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden alone and does so thoroughly: field list, link list, error token, and size cap. Nothing essential for calling this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema and baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces that pk identifies a single artist and must come from a search tool, but never mentions the 'language' parameter or its default behavior, adding little beyond the schema.

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 data of ONE artist identified by pk') and makes the scope explicit with "ONE" and the identifier. An agent can distinguish it from search_artists and from get_detail_artwork 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 a clear prerequisite: 'use a search tool first to find the pk', which routes the agent to the search siblings when it lacks an identifier. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_detail_artwork or the other get_detail_* tools, but the resource specificity makes the choice obvious.

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