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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context about major category IDs and their object counts, and the optional query/on-display refinement, but does not discuss pagination, result limits, or response structure beyond schema.

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 with a front-loaded verb and a compact list of the most common category IDs. The list is somewhat long but directly aids parameter selection. 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 an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete for a read-only browse tool. It explains the primary input and optional refinements. It could note that other thesaurus IDs are accepted, but that is implied.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the same category ID list. The description's mention of query and on_display aligns with schema but adds no new semantic detail beyond the structured schema. Baseline 3.

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 (browse) and resource (V&A collection objects) with the key selection mechanism (museum category/thesaurus ID). The sibling tools by_maker, object, and search make it clear this is the category-specific entry point.

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?

Provides clear context: use to browse by category with optional keyword and on-display filters. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the sibling tool names suggest when to use other access points. The phrase 'Browse by museum category' is a clear context but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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