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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavior: colour counts its whole family, colour is measured from every frame, and the flashes/epilepsy query triggers measured abrupt-light-event results. It also notes a 'short page' returns the curatorial capsule, though pagination/default behavior is only glancingly covered.

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?

Two dense sentences, with the resource and its filter surface front-loaded ahead of the special-case behaviors. It is efficient, though the long filter enumeration partially duplicates the schema rather than adding new 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 16 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does a fair job of framing the search surface and some return behavior, but it omits pagination mechanics, defaults, and ordering semantics that an agent needs to page or sort results. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 63%, so the schema does part of the work. The description adds genuine meaning for some params (colour family matching, every-frame measurement, ultrawide inclusion, flash/epilepsy query), but it mostly re-lists the filter dimensions already exposed in the schema and says nothing about limit/offset defaults, order, or sort_by.

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 and resource ('Search the catalogue of 297 moving-image works by César Yagüe') and enumerates the filter dimensions, making the scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like browse_collections, catalog_overview or get_artwork, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The description lists what can be searched but gives no when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to the seven sibling tools (e.g. browse_collections, rank_artworks). The one usage hint ('Asking about flashes or epilepsy...') describes a query behavior, not when this tool should be preferred over alternatives.

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