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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by mentioning multilingual support (24 languages), filter capabilities (country, media type), and typical return fields (title, creator, thumbnail, provider, year). This contextualizes the tool's behavior beyond 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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the key scope ('50M+...'), then lists features (multilingual, filters), and ends with a concise summary of return fields. Ideal length for a search tool description.

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 annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool searches, its scope, filtering options, and typical return fields. No obvious gaps remain.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description reiterates that you can filter by country and media type, which aligns with schema, but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 '50M+ cultural heritage objects across 4,000 institutions in 36 European countries', specifying the types of objects (paintings, photographs, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling cultural tools by emphasizing the broad European scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage for broad European cultural heritage searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like culture.artic.search or met.art.search. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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