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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real behavioral detail: truncation at 5000 chars unless full=true, images collapsed to image_count unless images=true, and linked records grouped by type. What it omits is failure behavior — what happens if neither id nor url is supplied, since all four parameters are optional.

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 purpose, then progressively discloses return shape and the two truncation switches in three tight sentences. Dense but no filler; the trailing "For a contributor:" clause is the only slightly bolted-on element.

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 full burden of describing the response, and it does so section by section, including the truncation defaults an agent must know about. The only gap is the ambiguity of zero required parameters — it never says id and url are mutually exclusive or which wins when neither is given.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by explaining the actual consequences of the flags: full=true restores long texts, images=true expands image_count into URLs, captions and copyright, and id/url are interchangeable identifiers. That is meaning beyond the one-line schema strings.

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?

"Full public record by id (or page url)" states a specific verb and resource, and the enumeration of returned sections (biography, exhibitions, bibliography, linked records, language versions) makes clear this is the detail endpoint rather than a list. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated — it never names artlist-search or artlist-describe as the alternative path.

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?

"Record id from search results" in the schema and the by-id-or-URL framing imply this is the follow-up call after a search, and the contributor note hints at a second use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of artlist-related or artlist-describe as alternatives for linked or summary data.

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