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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds two real behavioral facts beyond the annotations: only 'published' records are returned, and absence of a credit must be treated as unknown rather than as evidence of no donor — a meaningful guardrail against hallucinated attribution.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the interpretive caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% parameter description coverage and no guidance on empty-query behavior or pagination expectations, the description is only just adequate for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 0% and there are 3 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it says nothing about limit, offset, or what 'query' actually matches (donor names? accession numbers?). The mention of 'accession and donor credit records' only faintly implies the query domain; pagination semantics and the value of omitting query are left entirely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Find published accession and donor credit records.' It is clear what the tool retrieves and that results are scoped to published records, but it does not distinguish itself from any sibling (e.g. search_artists, list_dossiers), leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the resource name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list_/search_/get_ tools, nor any stated prerequisites. The second sentence is a caveat about interpreting absence, not a usage rule, so an agent gets no routing help at all.

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