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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior on top: results are ordered most-common-first, matching is case-insensitive, and counts are whole-collection rather than scoped. It does not discuss pagination or result size limits, which keeps it short of 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?

Three densely packed sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and sort order are front-loaded, followed by the filter hand-off and the count-scope caveat, each earning its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the remaining agent-relevant concerns: ordering, case handling, count scope, and the relationship to the sibling search tool. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: values pass through to the artic_search_artworks filter exactly as listed with case ignored, and counts are whole-collection. The substring/case-insensitive semantics are already in the schema, so this is additive rather than essential.

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 (list) and resource (Art Institute of Chicago collection vocabulary), plus scope details: sorted most-common-first, optionally substring-narrowed. It names the sibling artic_search_artworks and explains the relationship, so an agent can distinguish it from the search tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: counts here span the whole collection, whereas per-filtered-set counts require facets from artic_search_artworks. It also states the values feed the artic_search_artworks filter of the same name, which is exactly the hand-off condition an agent needs.

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