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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the returned fields, the five-link limit, the museum_not_found outcome, and the 25000-character cap. It also explains that truncated is true when description_html is shortened, giving the agent valuable response and edge-case context.

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 front-loads the operation, scope, and prerequisite, then efficiently covers output contents and exceptional behavior. Although dense, its field list and limits are useful rather than redundant, especially because there is no output 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?

For a simple two-parameter read operation, the definition supplies everything needed to select and invoke it and interpret important outcomes. The detailed return-field, not-found, and truncation information compensates well for the absence of an output schema.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description's pk and search-tool guidance largely repeats the schema's pk documentation, and it adds no further meaning for language beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 that the tool retrieves full data for one museum identified by its pk. Emphasizing "ONE museum" distinguishes it from search tools, while the museum resource differentiates it from sibling detail tools for articles, artists, and artworks.

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 instruction to "use a search tool first to find the pk" provides an explicit prerequisite and workflow. It would be stronger if it named search_museums specifically or stated when not to use this detail tool, but the intended selection context is clear.

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