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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context such as partial name matching and the fields returned. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description does not need to restate safety traits already encoded structurally.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then return surface, then matching behavior plus grounding examples. Every sentence contributes useful information without filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a read-only four-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the domain-specific details an agent needs: what is searched, what is returned, and that partial names are acceptable. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter definitions. The description adds practical value by giving concrete maker examples (Wedgwood, William Morris, Constable, Beatrix Potter) and clarifying that partial matches are supported, which helps an agent choose and populate the required maker parameter.

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 first sentence states the exact operation: searching V&A collection objects by a specific artist, designer, or maker. It also enumerates the returned record fields, making the tool's scope clear and distinguishing it from sibling object/category/general-search tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a maker name, and it notes partial name matching as an important search behavior. It does not explicitly route agents toward vam.collections.search for non-maker queries or explain when vam.collections.by_category is more appropriate, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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