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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about data scope: only published collectors, no private account access, no inferred identity, and wallet arrays omitted. This exceeds annotation coverage, so 4.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a concise constraint note. No wasted words, and the structure is clear. Score 4.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, yet the description omits any parameter guidance or usage context. While privacy scope is covered, the lack of input semantics leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation. Score 2.

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 the description does not mention limit, query, or offset. With three undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, making it impossible to know parameter meaning from the text. Score 1.

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 already-published collector register'), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools for artists and projects. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or differentiate from other search_* siblings, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. The boundary 'No private account access' is a constraint, not usage guidance. Implied usage only, so 2.

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