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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it specifies the return fields (CMA id, title, opening/closing dates, venue) and the scope of coverage ('shows mounted at and organized by the museum'). This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and what question it answers. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple 2-parameter schema, comprehensive annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, scope, and return format. The lack of pagination or sorting details is acceptable because the schema and output schema handle such specifics.

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?

Only the 'limit' parameter has schema description; 'query' lacks one. The description compensates by explicitly stating the search is by 'title keyword', clarifying the meaning of 'query'. With 50% schema coverage, this partial compensation is sufficient, though not exhaustive.

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 the tool searches the Cleveland Museum of Art's exhibition history by title keyword, and specifies the exact question it answers ('whether the Cleveland Museum of Art has shown an exhibition on a subject, and when it ran'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search or get_artwork by narrowing the scope to exhibitions and the museum.

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 for when to use the tool: searching exhibition history at a specific museum by keyword. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusionary conditions, but the scope is well-defined enough that an agent can infer appropriate use cases. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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