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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds return fields and scope (CMA collection), which is useful but not rich behavioral detail like pagination or matching semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and returns. The third sentence slightly repeats earlier points, but overall it is efficient and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the output schema and rich annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and search semantics. Minor gap: the example with 'abstract' suggests query may not always be a name, but the description only mentions name matching, creating slight ambiguity.

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?

The description explicitly says 'by name', giving meaning to the query parameter which lacks a schema description. The limit parameter is already described in the schema. Thus the description compensates for the 50% schema coverage and clarifies the key parameter.

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 it searches creator records by name, returns specific fields (id, name, role, dates, nationality), and answers which artists match a name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_artwork or exhibitions, which focus on different resources.

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 provides clear context: it is for searching creator/artist records in the CMA collection by name. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent would know when to use it.

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