Find press and publication sources (Estonian newspapers via DEA, monographs) in a year range, optionally filtered by a text query against the source title/publication. Backed by the archive timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| year_to | No | ||
| year_from | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it is 'backed by the archive timeline,' providing context about data source. However, it does not mention result limits, pagination, or behavior without parameters, leaving minor gaps.
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 with no redundancy. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a minor detail. Every word earns its place.
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?
The description covers purpose and filters adequately, but does not explain return values, result structure, or pagination. Given the tool has no output schema and moderate complexity, some questions remain about output format.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that 'query' filters against source title/publication and year parameters define a range. This adds significant meaning but lacks per-parameter details like format or inclusivity.
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 finds press and publication sources, specifies the scope (Estonian newspapers via DEA, monographs), and indicates filtering by year range and text query. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_artists or search_exhibitions.
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 context is implied but not explicit. The description says 'Find press and publication sources' suggesting when to use, but it does not specify when not to use or list alternatives (e.g., for artists use search_artists).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a unique entity or action (e.g., get_artist vs. search_artists, get_relations vs. get_stats). No two tools have overlapping purposes, so an agent can clearly distinguish them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: either get_<entity> or search_<entity>. No mixing of conventions like camelCase or different verbs.
12 tools is well-scoped for an archive server covering artists, exhibitions, works, organizations, marks, press, and graph relations. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the main entities (artists, works, exhibitions, organizations) and provides search and retrieval for all key types. Additional tools like get_relations and get_timeline fill gaps for connected data and chronology, making the set feel complete for its domain.