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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral facts beyond that: it is scoped to PUBLIC works only and returns work URLs plus page metadata, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the resource and filter surface front-loaded and the return value stated second. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 5 optional params fully documented in the schema, complete annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the remaining pieces an agent needs: the public-only scope and the shape of the response. It only lacks an explicit routing hint toward search_poetry for keyword queries.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in detail (enums, ranges, examples, cross-references to list_types/list_dynasties/list_collections). The description only restates the filter list in shorthand ('collection ID, dynasty name (category), kind slug (tag)'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (browse) and resource (public works) plus the optional filter dimensions, which distinguishes it from get_work/search_poetry by naming the enumeration use case. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_poetry, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Browse ... with optional ...' implies a filtered listing and the word 'optional' signals all filters are skippable, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-search_poetry guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement of what a keyword search should use instead.

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