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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well: it states the fixed scope of 15 collections, the per-collection work counts, the optional drill-down to full works, and the conditional curatorial capsule. It does not detail error behavior or response structure, but the main behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the primary behavior, the parameter behavior, and the conditional detail, in order of importance. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one-optional-parameter tool, the description covers both invocation modes and what to expect in each, including the conditional capsule. No output schema is supplied, but the description gives enough return-context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema covers the single optional parameter at 100% with 'Omit to list them all.' The description adds the key semantic that the parameter is a collection name and that supplying it returns the works in full, which is useful beyond the bare schema text.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List the 15 collections and singles, each with the number of works it holds,' and further explains the drill-down behavior of requesting a collection by name. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as search_artworks or catalog_overview.

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 implies how to use the tool: browse the full list, or ask for one collection by name to see its works. It does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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