artscii

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to describe the return format, pagination behavior, case sensitivity of search, or what happens when no matches are found. It only states the basic search functionality.

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 consists of exactly two efficient sentences with zero redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and earns its brevity given the simple, well-documented schema.

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 low complexity (two simple parameters) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any description of the output format or return structure, which is a notable gap since no output schema is provided.

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?

With 100% input schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters (including that query matches id/name/category/tags). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely confirming the keyword search and filter usage, warranting the baseline score.

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 verb (search), resource (ASCII art and kaomoji), and method (by keyword). It implicitly covers the scope of both content types, distinguishing it from the sibling 'kaomoji' tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'get' or 'list' siblings.

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 no guidance on when to select this tool versus siblings like 'get' (retrieve by ID) or 'list' (browse all). It only offers a basic hint about using the 'type' parameter for filtering, which is parametric usage rather than tool selection guidance.

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