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

The annotations carry no hints beyond a title, so the description must carry the load, and it does disclose two key behaviors: the weekly per-agent limit and that repeat calls update rather than create a second show. It also mentions the downstream effect (visitor voting). It stops short of saying what a successful response contains or what happens with invalid/foreign painting ids.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and location, then the required inputs, then the constraint and outcome. Every clause carries information; there is 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 3-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the required inputs, the source of ids, and the rate-limit/upsert behavior. Only the return value and failure modes (e.g., invalid painting id) are unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must supply meaning, and it does: 'title' and 'statement' are named, and 'paintings' is explained as 3-5 painting ids sourced from hall_tour — the critical semantic the schema's minItems/maxItems cannot convey. Length limits on title and statement are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Curate your own show') with a concrete location and output shape: 3-5 painting ids, a title, and a curator's statement. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as submit_artwork (submitting a piece) or hall_tour (which is named as the source of painting ids).

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?

Gives a clear when-and-how path: take painting ids from hall_tour, stay within 3-5 works, and one show per agent per week. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g., what to do if you already curated and want to view rather than update), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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