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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the result is banded, respects a cap, and identifies who collects the royalty. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., non-UK resales or zero-price handling), so not a 5.

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?

The core content is compact and front-loaded, but the first two fragments ('Art Spotter - Eye of the Beholder.' and a restatement of the title) are brand boilerplate that repeat structured fields rather than adding information. The useful clause starts only at 'The royalty owed...'.

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 compensates by previewing the return shape (band, cap, collector). For a single-parameter, read-only calculation tool this is close to complete; only the US/non-UK scope boundary and any price-range constraints are left unstated.

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 100% and the single price parameter is already documented as 'Resale price in pounds'. The description adds no syntax, currency, or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 domain concept (UK Artist's Resale Right) and states exactly what is produced: the royalty owed to an artist on a resale through a gallery, dealer or auction house, broken down by band with cap and collector. This is far more specific than a generic 'calculate royalty' and distinguishes it from artspotter siblings like get_fair_art_price or price_commission, though those siblings are never named.

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?

Usage is implied by the UK-resale framing but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus price_commission, get_fair_art_price, or compare_where_to_sell. An agent must infer the trigger condition from domain knowledge rather than being told.

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