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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context by describing the nature of the artworks ('contemplative moving art works') and the return content ('curatorial descriptions'). For a search operation, this is sufficient transparency; side effects are absent and defaults are left to the schema.

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 focused sentences: the first states the purpose, the second enumerates filters and the return value. No wasted words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (11 optional parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core purpose, filter options, and return value. It could mention default ordering or pagination, but the schema handles those details. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role without confusion.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters, making the baseline 3. The description adds an aggregated summary of filter types (keywords, collection, resolution, price range, orientation, space type) but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('César Yagüe's art catalog of contemplative moving art works'), clearly differentiating it from siblings like browse_collections and get_artwork. It also lists the primary filter dimensions, making the tool's function immediately unambiguous.

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 clearly implies this is the tool for searching and filtering the catalog by keywords, collection, resolution, etc. While it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, the context is clear and the filter list effectively defines its use case.

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