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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it identifies the source as a public API with no auth required, notes the collection scale ('1M+ objects'), and clarifies the on_display filter's meaning. This is strong context, though it does not cover every operational detail.

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?

Three densely informative sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by return-value context, a targeted usage tip, and a source/auth note. Every sentence 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?

With 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description only needs to add orientation and it does: collection scale, return fields, on_display semantics, and no-auth access. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds a few mapping hints ('date range' maps to year_from/year_to; 'display status' maps to on_display), but it does not substantially extend what the schema already communicates.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('1M+ objects in the Victoria and Albert Museum collection'), and filter dimensions (keyword, object type, date range, display status). It clearly separates this general search tool from sibling tools like vam.collections.by_category and vam.collections.object.

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 provides clear usage context: it is the general collection search, supports filters, and gives a specific use case ('Filter by on_display=true to find objects currently on display in London'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as by_category or by_maker, so it falls short of perfect alternative routing.

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