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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the exact composition of the returned biography and noting that the prose is CC0, which is helpful since no output schema exists.

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?

The description is tight and efficient: one well-structured sentence enumerates the payload contents, followed by a short license note. Every element earns its place and the most important action—fetching one artist's full biography—is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool, this description is complete: it gives the input mechanism, the full set of top-level fields in the returned biography, and licensing information despite the absence of an output schema. An agent knows what to expect and what consequences to use, with nothing 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?

There is only one required parameter, and the schema fully documents it with a clear source annotation and an example slug. The description's 'by slug' phrasing adds no meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it gets one artist's full structured biography by slug, and enumerates the fields returned. It is clearly distinct from list_dossiers and search_artists, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar-looking get_artist_otdh sibling.

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?

The description makes it clear this is the tool for retrieving a single artist's complete biography once a slug is known, with the schema reinforcing that slugs come from list_dossiers or search_artists. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a top score.

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