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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the concrete response contents: title, descriptions, makers, materials, techniques, categories, styles, production date, origin, gallery, IIIF image URL, and collections page link. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero filler. The lengthy field list is dense but information-bearing and appropriately follows the front-loaded verb and resource. Every element earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only detail lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how the object is identified, and implies the workflow via the schema's provenance note. Nothing essential 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% with a clear description of system_number, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a concrete example ('O429002') and identifies it as the V&A system number, which reinforces the expected format. This is meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get full details for a specific V&A museum object by its system number.' It then enumerates the returned fields, which precisely defines scope. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling V&A tools (by_category, by_maker, search) which are browse/search operations, while this is a single-object detail lookup.

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 states the tool is for a specific object identified by system number, and the parameter schema adds 'Returned in search results as system_number,' implying this tool is used after a search. This gives clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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