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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail — results are capped at 12 works and ordered newest first — but says nothing about what happens when no match is found or how the cap interacts with the limit parameter.

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 tight sentences with the resource and return contents front-loaded and no filler. The closing input hint is slightly redundant with the schema but earns its place by adding the 'former name' case.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so only partially (page, website, works) without covering the response shape or the limit parameter's effect. Adequate for a simple two-parameter lookup, 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: the creator parameter is documented in the schema, and the description usefully extends it by accepting a former name, which the schema does not mention. The limit parameter is undocumented in both places, and the stated 'up to 12' cap sits in unexplained tension with the schema's maximum of 100.

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 names a specific resource (a designer, studio or brand on Memorables) and enumerates what is returned: their page, website and works. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_work or get_collection, though the verb itself is only implied by the title rather than stated in the description.

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 the agent what to supply (a name, a former name, or a page), which implies a lookup use case, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as search_works or similar_works, and no when-not conditions.

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