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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about returned fields (title, artist, date, etc.) and scope (120,000+ artworks, all periods/regions), complementing annotations without contradiction.

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 brief yet comprehensive: three sentences covering scope, types of artworks, return fields, and coverage. No filler or redundancy; each 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 presence of an output schema and thorough parameter descriptions in the schema, the description sufficiently covers tool purpose and capabilities. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination parameters (limit, page) explicitly, but schema handles that.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (q, limit, page) are present and provide adequate meaning. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond listing return fields, which are output-related. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 explicitly states the tool searches artworks at the Art Institute of Chicago, listing specific types (paintings, sculptures, etc.) and fields returned. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like culture.artic.artist and culture.artic.artwork by focusing on search.

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 implies use for broad search across all periods and regions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like culture.artic.artist (artist details) or culture.artic.artwork (specific artwork). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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