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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are filtered to 'good-confidence matches' only, and it enumerates the returned fields including the null-when-absent image_url and a relevance score. It does not explain how confidence is determined or how relevance is ranked, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, no filler. The search scope is front-loaded and the return contract follows, with the image_url null case handled inline in parentheses.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming every field returned. Combined with complete parameter documentation, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret it. The only gap is that ranking/confidence semantics are asserted but not explained.

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 query, limit and language are already fully documented in the schema, including the 1-10 limit bound and the default language. The description restates the query scope (title, artist name, description) without adding syntax, matching behavior, or language-code guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search of the artwork catalog') plus the fields searched (title, artist name, description), which clearly separates it from the get_detail_* siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from search_objects_semantically, which is the closest alternative for the same resource.

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?

Usage is only implied: calling it a 'full-text search' suggests keyword lookup, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_objects_semantically or when to go straight to get_detail_artwork. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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