Search and organize gallery works

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the description is free to add transformation semantics: that results are merged into works, installments grouped into series, uniqueWorkCount is heuristic, and every work carries a confidence level. These are genuinely useful behavioral disclosures beyond the structured fields, though rate-limiting implications are left to the schema's maxPages text.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the search scope and pipeline before the output-shape note about galleryCount and uniqueWorkCount. Efficient, though the second sentence packs several distinct facts together.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure, yet it helpfully clarifies the semantics of galleryCount vs uniqueWorkCount and the confidence level. For a 13-parameter, merge-heavy tool this is close to complete; the main missing piece is routing guidance relative to sibling search tools.

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 fully documents all 13 parameters including the rate-limited maxPages and next cursor. The description only echoes the 'up to 10 result pages' constraint (maxPages) without adding format or interaction detail, so the 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?

The description states a specific multi-step pipeline: search result pages, fetch official metadata, merge version/language variants into works, and group installments into series. That is far more informative than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like eh_search_galleries or eh_search_galleries_batch, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent is told what the tool does but not under what conditions it should be preferred over eh_search_galleries or eh_search_galleries_batch, which appear to cover overlapping ground.

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