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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: an ambiguous title returns every candidate instead of guessing, and it discloses the response payload shape (spec, price, physics, capsule availability).

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-loads the verb and payload in one sentence, then uses the second clause for the ambiguity rule. Dense but every clause earns its place; the parenthetical 'when available' qualifier is slightly buried but not wasteful.

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 must carry return-value information, and it does — it names the payload components and flags that the curatorial capsule is conditional. Combined with the ambiguity contract, an agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the identifier-or-title duality and the multi-candidate behavior, which largely duplicates what the schema already says rather than adding syntax or format detail.

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 ('Retrieve one artwork in full') and enumerates exactly what comes back: technical specification, availability, price, master-derived physics, and curatorial capsule. An agent can distinguish it from search_artworks and browse_collections, which query many works rather than resolving one.

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 clarifies the lookup key (identifier or title) and the ambiguity path, which is genuine usage guidance. But it never says when to prefer this over search_artworks or browse_collections, nor when it should not be used, so routing to the correct sibling is left to inference.

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