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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: that it reaches both independent-artist shops and eBay, and that results carry title, artist, size, price, shipping origin, image and a direct buy link. That return-content disclosure matters since there is no output 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what it does and the scope of the search, then the result contents. The branding repetition ('Art Spotter - Eye of the Beholder. Find art for sale from independent artists.') slightly duplicates the title, but there is no filler beyond that.

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 13-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers sources, filterable facets, and returned fields including buy links. It does not explain how multiple filters combine or what happens with zero results, and limit/default behavior is left to the schema, so a small gap remains.

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 every one of the 13 parameters is already documented in the schema (including enum values for kind and unit). The description restates the facet list (words, kind, original or print, price, size, colour) without adding syntax, format, defaults, or interaction rules beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (searches/find) plus resource (art for sale from independent artists) and even names the two corpora searched: independent artists' own shops and eBay. An agent can tell this apart from artspotter_check_art_listing or artspotter_get_fair_art_price, which are verification/pricing tools rather than discovery. Loses a point only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with a close sibling.

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 implies its use case (finding artwork to buy) and enumerates the facets you may search on, but never says when to use it versus alternatives or when not to. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or routing hints to any of the sibling tools.

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