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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes well beyond by disclosing the ranking order (title matches first, artist/culture second, full-text last) and that each result includes a matched_on field. It also lists the returned fields, providing rich behavioral detail unavailable from annotations alone.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and examples, followed by behavior and return fields. Every clause adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 a full output schema (mentioned as present), robust annotations, a simple two-parameter input schema, and the description adding ranking and matched_on behavior, the tool is fully specified. The agent can correctly select and invoke this tool without additional elaboration.

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%, with query and limit fully documented. The description adds examples and explains how the query is interpreted (subject, artist, or keyword), but this largely mirrors the schema. It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what is already in 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Search the Met's collection by subject, artist or keyword' with concrete examples. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on collection search and including ranking logic, which differentiates it from get_artwork, get_departments, and search_within.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('Search the Met's collection') and provides example queries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, such as pointing to get_artwork for specific artwork retrieval, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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