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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld; the description adds substantial behavioral context: what is returned (title, MP3 URL, transcript), the data quirk that stops have no artwork id, that some stops are Spanish, that titles may be internal file names, and the noncommercial-use licensing constraint with citation requirement.

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?

Front-loads the core action and match semantics before routing and caveats. Dense but nearly every sentence carries load; the licensing sentence is longer than strictly needed for tool selection but is legitimate usage context.

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 values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them. Combined with the routing guidance, data caveats, and licensing terms, nothing an agent needs to select or call this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (query, page, limit) are already documented in the schema, and the description's note that matching is against titles/transcripts duplicates the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource ('Search the Art Institute of Chicago's mobile audio-guide stops by text') including the match fields (titles and transcripts). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling artic_get_artworks by explaining that stops carry no artwork id and that related_media is the path for a known artwork.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: use this for text search of stops, but for a known artwork use artic_get_artworks related_media. It also explains the matching strategy ('match a stop to a work by its title') and warns that titles are sometimes internal file names, which affects how to use results.

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