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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses important behavior: each suggestion includes its measurement, and an empty result returns a clear 'nothing fits' statement instead of a forced nearest item. It stops short of describing how all optional parameters affect behavior, but the key non-obvious traits are surfaced.

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 tight sentences: the first states the action and outcome, the second names the key decision factors, and the third handles edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a viable call path and explains the return will include measurements and a no-match case. It is enough for a first call, but it leaves the semantics of several optional params and the exact response structure undocumented.

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?

Most parameters have descriptions in the schema, and the description reinforces orientation, room light, distance, and screen size as decision factors. It doesn't add meaningful semantics for count, colour, movement, attention, or budget_max beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate but not compensating beyond the schema baseline.

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 what the tool does: given a space description, it returns works that fit, each with a measurement. It also distinguishes itself by promising an explicit 'nothing fits' answer rather than a nearest match. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the space-based framing is distinctive enough.

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 implies when to use it: when the input is a free-text space description, and it calls out key deciding factors like orientation, room light, viewing distance, and screen size. It does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings such as search_artworks or rank_artworks, nor does it give exclusions.

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