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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful context by specifying 'playable' content and the 'compact catalogue links' return shape, which are genuinely behavioral traits beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, how many results are returned by default, or any limitations of the compact links, so it stops at an adequate but not rich level.

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, zero filler, with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and the scoping constraint ('playable', the object list) is stated before the return format. This is appropriately tight.

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 tool is moderately complex (nested preferences object with four un-documented sub-parameters, a limit field with no explanation). An output schema exists, so return details are less critical, but the parameter documentation gap and the lack of sibling differentiation mean an agent cannot confidently configure a correct call. The description is not complete enough for this complexity level.

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 only 33% (only 'query' is described), and the description adds nothing about the 'limit' or the nested 'preferences' object. The preferences sub-fields (format, languages, hideNorwayOnly, requireSubtitles) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. Since coverage is below 50%, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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'), a clear resource (Kulturbase), and enumerates the object types covered (programmes, recordings, works, series, people). It also states the return format (compact catalogue links). It does not differentiate from the sibling find_recording, so an agent cannot tell when to prefer one over the other, keeping it one step below a top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use search_catalog versus find_recording, no stated exclusions, and no hint of which scenario favors the sibling tool. The description only implies a broad search capability, leaving the agent to guess the intended call boundary.

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