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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful detail by listing the fields searched, which is a behavioral trait beyond just 'search'. However, it does not mention return behavior, pagination, or authentication, so it remains somewhat incomplete.

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 clear sentence that communicates the essential information without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain more about what the tool returns and any limitations. It only states what it searches, not what the result set looks like, whether it supports wildcards, or how results are ordered. For a simple tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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 0%, and the description compensates by implying that the 'query' parameter is the text to match against the listed fields. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not explicitly name or define the query parameter format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool performs a full-text search on the collection, specifying the exact fields searched (title, significance, subject, accession number). This differentiates it from siblings like list_collection (likely listing all) and get_exhibit (retrieving a specific item), providing a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 implies when to use the tool (when needing to search by text) but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives such as list_collection for browsing or get_exhibit for direct lookup. No exclusions or preferred use cases are stated, leaving the agent to infer.

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