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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked by money kept and that fee tables are region-limited (US/UK), but it says nothing about fee-table freshness, currency-to-table binding, or rate limits. Useful but not rich.

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 of the five sentences are brand/title restatement ('Art Spotter - Eye of the Beholder. What an artist keeps on each selling platform'), which delays the substantive scoping information. The remaining sentences carry real content, but the front-loading is wasted on framing.

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 does the work of describing the return implicitly: per-platform net-kept figures sorted by money kept. Combined with the safety annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the exact response shape is not spelled out.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description implies that kind=print activates print-on-demand handling and that currency selects the applicable fee table, which is marginal added meaning over the schema. 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 computation (net proceeds after fees per selling platform) and its scope (price -> money kept, sorted, US/UK tables, POD option for prints). This clearly separates it from siblings like artspotter_get_fair_art_price or artspotter_calculate_resale_royalty. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings to differentiate.

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 phrasing 'For a sale price...', which tells the agent this is a per-price comparison query, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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