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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does disclose the derived outputs (art width, hanging height, gap above furniture, gallery wall spacing) plus a side effect of surfacing a search for works in that size range. Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so this adds genuine context beyond structured data.

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 purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler, but the opening two sentences largely restate the tool title and name, and the final sentence is a run-on list. It is adequate rather than tight.

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?

It covers what the tool computes and hints at returned search results, which is reasonable given no output schema. However it is silent on whether wall_width and furniture_width are mutually exclusive or combinable, and on how the 'ready search' behaves, leaving a gap for a zero-required-parameter tool.

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 unit, wall_width and furniture_width are already fully documented with their conditional meaning. The description only echoes 'art width for the furniture or wall' without adding format, ranges, or guidance on supplying one vs. both parameters. 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 outcome (what size art fits a wall / how high to hang it) and enumerates the computed values (width, hanging height, gap above furniture, gallery spacing), which distinguishes it from siblings like artspotter_search_art or artspotter_get_fair_art_price. It is clear, though it never explicitly names which sibling it is not.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The only implicit usage signal is the schema's distinction between wall_width and furniture_width, which lives in the schema, not the description.

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