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

With no annotations, the description carries more responsibility. It adds value by revealing that recommendations are driven by curatorial criteria (vibrational frequency, audience type, artistic essence), which sets expectations. Yet it does not mention output format, empty-result behavior, or how optional filters interact with curation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every phrase contributes meaning; there is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 description covers the core use case and decision logic, and the schema thoroughly documents all five parameters. It falls slightly short on return-format details due to the lack of an output schema, but the purpose and criteria are sufficiently clear for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces space_description as the central input and introduces the curatorial criteria, but it doesn't enhance understanding of count, budget_max, resolution, or orientation beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opening phrase 'Get art recommendations for a specific space or environment' uses a clear verb-object structure. It differentiates itself from sibling search/browse tools by centering on space-aware curation rather than direct querying.

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 tells users to 'Describe the space' to trigger recommendations, which implies the tool is appropriate when there is a physical or environmental context to curate for. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over search_artworks or browse_collections, so no alternative exclusion is given.

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