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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that all values are measured frame-by-frame from the master and that 'nothing here is described', signaling objective ranking. It omits details on output format, side effects, or scope limitations, though the read-only nature is reasonably inferable.

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 reasonably compact, front-loaded with the main action, and supported by illustrative examples. The 'frame by frame' phrase is slightly opaque and the poetic closing adds mild flourish, but overall every section 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?

The core ranking behavior and typical use cases are covered, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves count and availability unexplained and gives no concrete idea of return structure. It is adequate for a simple ordering tool but not fully complete.

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?

The schema already documents order, metric, and collection, and the description adds natural-language meaning to the metric examples and collection scoping. However, count and availability have no schema description and are not explained in the description, leaving meaningful coverage gaps at 60%.

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 and resource: ordering the catalogue by a measured axis, with concrete example questions like 'the stillest work' or 'the brightest'. It implicitly differentiates from search_artworks by emphasizing numeric measurement over description, making its role clear.

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 clear usage context with example user queries and signals that this is for ranked, measurement-based questions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as search_artworks, so routing guidance is incomplete rather than fully explicit.

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