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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the absence of a free-text query, the field-scoped nature of filters, and the Dutch title cataloguing. It also mentions keyless access and the IIIF image URL in returns. It does not contradict 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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then adds the authoritative note, then the usage constraint about field-scoped filters and Dutch titles, and finishes with an example. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns (title, maker, date, materials, description, rights, IIIF URL), and how to use it (example). It omits details like error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for initial selection. The absence of an output schema is compensated by describing the return record fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that filters are field-scoped (no free-text q), emphasizing Dutch titles for the title parameter, and providing a usage example. This goes beyond the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb and resource: it searches the Rijksmuseum's ~800,000-object collection across many fields and returns real records. It lists the object types covered and the fields searchable, clearly differentiating from siblings like rijks_object (which likely fetches a single object) and non-museum tools.

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: it is authoritative for Rijksmuseum holdings, notes that there is no free-text q (filters are field-scoped), and warns that titles are catalogued in Dutch. It provides a concrete example. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like rijks_object, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand when to use this search tool.

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