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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world reads. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are summarized (dates, gallery, summary, web page) and artwork entries are only included 'when the museum lists them,' implying partial data that requires a follow-up artic_get_artworks call. No auth or rate-limit detail is given.

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 tight sentences: capability and scope first, return contents second, follow-up routing last. No filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and parameter semantics are fully handled by the schema. It covers scope, the artwork-id handoff to artic_get_artworks, and the partial-data caveat — everything an agent needs to select and call it.

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% and every parameter (page, sort, when, limit, query, date_from, date_to) is documented there in more detail than here. The description only gestures at 'text and date' and the now/upcoming/past framing, adding little 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 and resource ('Search Art Institute of Chicago exhibitions by text and date') with the two dimensions of searching named. The resource word 'exhibitions' cleanly separates it from siblings artic_search_artworks, artic_search_artists, and artic_search_audio_guide.

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?

Conveys the use contexts directly ('what is on now, what is coming, or past shows on a topic'), which maps to the `when` parameter, and explicitly routes to artic_get_artworks for full records. It never states when to prefer a sibling search tool over this one, so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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