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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and nondestructive. The description adds valuable context: returns only object IDs (not full data), mentions the CC0 public domain status, and implies a safe operation. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, searchable fields, output type, next step, and license info. No unnecessary words. Very well structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a search tool: it states what it does, what it returns (object IDs), and directs to the detail tool. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or limits, but not critical given typical API design.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions. The description lists high-level filter categories (keyword, artist, medium, department, date range, geography) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search 470,000+ artworks at The Metropolitan Museum of Art' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions searchable fields (keyword, artist, medium, department, date range, geography) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'met.art.details' by indicating that this tool returns object IDs for subsequent detail retrieval.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use 'met.art.details' for full metadata and images, providing a clear after-search step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative search tools, though the sibling context makes this clear. The guidance is sufficient for an AI agent.

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