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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: 'No auth required', the paginated return shape (items, total, page, pages), and the per-item fields. The limit cap and sort semantics duplicate structured data, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then return shape, then constraints and alternatives in tight clauses. Every sentence adds a distinct fact with no 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 no output schema, the description supplies the return contract (pagination fields and item fields) and the auth posture. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema (including the query-omission behavior and sort enum meanings). The description restates those meanings in prose without adding format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 public gallery works) plus the fields searched (title, description, tags, id) and the browse-without-query fallback. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming view and list_assets by their distinct jobs.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('omit query to browse the newest works') and routes to alternatives with their selecting conditions ('Use view to open a result, or list_assets for your own uploads'). No inference required.

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