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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds context about the output (artist cards with work/exhibition counts and canonical page URLs) and the scope (Estonian jewellery/metalwork artists), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.

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?

The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and key attributes, making it easy to scan and parse. Every phrase adds value.

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?

Given the 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description explains the return format (paginated cards with counts and URLs) and the domain. It lacks details on pagination defaults or how to get subsequent pages, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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 50%, with explicit descriptions for query, school, and category. The description adds the concept of 'graduation-year range' (covering grad_year_from and grad_year_to) but does not explain page or category further. The description compensates partially for the uncovered parameters, but does not fully detail every parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the verb (Search), the resource (artist registry), and the specific filters (name, school, graduation-year range). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_artist (single artist) and other search tools by specifying the domain (Estonian jewellery/metalwork artists) and the output (paginated cards with counts and URLs).

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 mentions available filters (name, school, graduation-year range) and that results are paginated, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_artist for a single artist. The context from sibling tools implies differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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