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 only needs to add operational context. It does: results are filtered to good-confidence matches only, and the return shape is enumerated, including the non-obvious 'image_url is null when there is none' rule.

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, no filler. The core operation and narrowing options come first, and the return contract follows. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly spends its second sentence on the returned fields. The good-confidence filter and null-image rule are the kind of details an agent cannot get elsewhere. Only the absence of any sibling routing keeps it below 5.

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 query, city, country, limit and language are all documented in structured fields. The description reinforces the narrowing semantics of city/country but adds nothing for limit (max 10) or language, so the baseline 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 ('Full-text search of museums by name') plus the narrowing dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_detail_museum or search_fts, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

'Optionally narrowed by city and country' implies the search-widening usage pattern, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the alternative (get_detail_museum for a known museum, search_fts for broader text search). The agent must infer the routing.

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