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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: which inputs are soft measurements versus hard filters, the rotation rule, that each result carries its measurement and curatorial capsule, and the failure mode of naming the blocking requirement instead of returning a near match. This is notably more than the annotations convey.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value, then the constraint model, then the failure behavior. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and only 67% schema coverage, the description does the needed work by describing the return contents (measurement plus capsule) and the no-match behavior. The undocumented 'count' parameter is the only notable omission.

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 67%, and the description supplements it meaningfully by partitioning parameters into measured soft factors (room light, viewing distance, screen size, attention, movement) versus hard limits (collection, resolution, orientation, colour, budget) and clarifying the rotation/orientation rule. It does not explain 'count', which keeps it short of a 5.

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 (recommend) and resource (works fitting a described space) and describes both the input gesture and the returned artifact (works plus the measurement and curatorial capsule). It is clearly distinct from search_artworks and rank_artworks by being space-driven, but it never names a sibling to route against explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: describe a space when you want fittings rather than to browse or query. The description does not state when to prefer this over search_artworks or rank_artworks, nor any prerequisites, so guidance stays at the inferred level.

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