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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds the useful note that results are ids requiring fetch. It says nothing about result limits, language-mixing behavior, or match semantics, which would be the genuinely additive details beyond annotations.

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?

Three short clauses: scope, return shape, and the alternative for filtered queries. Front-loaded with the resource and archive, zero filler, and the routing hint comes last where it belongs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and one fully documented parameter is trivial to cover. The description supplies the two things the structured fields cannot: domain scope and the ids-then-fetch workflow, though it omits result-count or pagination expectations.

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% with a single required "query" parameter already documented as "search text, e.g. a name, technique, place or topic." The description reinforces the breadth of entity types but adds no syntax, matching, or normalization guidance beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Standard document search over the Artlist archive") and enumerates the entity types searched, so the agent knows what it returns (ids for fetch). It differentiates itself from artlist-search only indirectly, by calling itself "standard" and pushing filters elsewhere, which is slightly muddier than a clean sibling split.

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?

It gives a clear routing rule: use this for plain queries, prefer artlist-search when filters (type, years, topics, links) are needed. That is an explicit alternative with a condition, though it does not mention when not to use search at all versus fetch or artlist-get by id.

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