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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the numbers are measured frame-by-frame from the master asset rather than from descriptive metadata, which tells the agent what kind of values to expect. It omits pagination/count behavior and default ordering details.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and axis, with the example questions placed after the mechanics. The closing flourish ('nothing here is described') is slightly literary but does carry meaning about provenance, so it earns its place.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description should say more about what a call returns (e.g., a ranked list with per-work scores) and what count defaults to. It implies a ranked readout ('read where each work sits') but leaves the response shape and count semantics to inference.

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 60% and three parameters carry enums, so the schema does much of the work. The description names several metric axes (rhythm, luminance, peak brightness, colour travel, empty space) and paraphrases the order semantics, but these largely restate the enum values and add nothing for count, collection, or availability. Baseline 3 fits.

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 (Order/rank) and resource (the catalogue) plus the axis of ordering, which clearly separates it from browse_collections or search_artworks. It does not name a sibling or explicitly disclaim other tools, but the ranking framing is unambiguous.

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 concrete trigger questions ('the stillest work you have', 'the brightest, in this collection') that map cleanly onto the arguments, so an agent knows what kind of request this serves. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing at search_artworks for keyword/filter queries.

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