Muralists Directory

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false). The description adds that it returns the full profile text and is intended for citation, but does not discuss output size, rate limits, or any special handling. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the id-source hint is placed second. 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-parameter read-only fetch with an output schema, the definition is nearly complete. The main gap is that it does not explain how fetch relates to the similarly named sibling get_muralist_profile, so an agent may be uncertain which to invoke.

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 coverage is 100% and the id parameter is fully described as a slug returned by search. The description repeats this same provenance rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so it earns 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 a specific verb and resource: retrieve the full text of one Muralists directory profile by id, and adds the purpose (citation). However, it does not differentiate fetch from the sibling get_muralist_profile, which appears to target the same resource.

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?

It gives clear usage context: ids come from the search tool and the use case is citation. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds that it returns a 'full profile' with specific sections, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether profile data is aggregated from external sources or if portfolio images are included, though for a read-only profile tool this gap is acceptable.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and content, then a clear usage directive. 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and clear schema documentation, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the return format, but the description lists the profile sections which implies the structure.

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?

The input schema documents the id parameter thoroughly, including its nature as a slug, stability, source, and URL usage. The description doesn't repeat this but complements by indicating the id comes from search_muralists. With one well-documented parameter, the baseline is elevated.

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 gets a full profile of a specific muralist, enumerating the content (bio, styles, portfolio, project types, quote request). It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_muralists by specifying 'a specific muralist' and directing use 'after search_muralists'.

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?

Explicitly says to use after search_muralists to get details on a candidate. This gives clear sequencing guidance and differentiates from the search alternative.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so no side-effect disclosures are needed. The description adds behavioral value by clarifying that results are limited to matching artists and profile URLs and that full profile content requires a separate fetch call – a useful boundary beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second adds the return format and next step. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 one required parameter, a read-only annotation, and an existing output schema, the description supplies the essential usage flow and return shape. The only remaining gap is the relationship to the search_muralists sibling, which prevents a 5.

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?

The only parameter (query) is already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The tool description enriches this by specifying what the free-text query can target – name, city, style – which is not present in the schema. Thus it earns a 4.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource – 'Search the Muralists directory' – and enumerates searchable facets (name, city, style). It distinguishes itself from fetch/get_muralist_profile by noting that only profile URLs are returned and that fetch is needed for full profiles. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling search_muralists, leaving ambiguity between the two search tools.

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?

It provides a concrete workflow: run a free-text search, receive profile URLs, then 'Use fetch with a returned id to read the full profile.' This is clear context for when this tool fits. It does not state explicit exclusions or when to prefer search_muralists, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: the directory is curated, it supports filtering, and results include portfolio highlights and profile URLs. No contradiction with annotations exists. It could go deeper on sorting or empty-result behavior, but the read-only nature and result contents are sufficiently transparent.

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 is two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence leads with the verb and resource, and the second sentence covers return value and use case. Every phrase 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 is mostly complete: it states scope, filters, return contents, and an intended use case, and an output schema exists so return details are covered. However, the mismatch between 'in Europe' and a region parameter that only accepts Dutch provinces/cities is a meaningful gap. An agent could use this tool for a Berlin muralist request and get nothing because the actual data scope is narrower than described.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the idea of filtering by city/region and style, which maps to the region and style parameters, but adds no new detail beyond the schema. It stays at baseline rather than being elevated.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches a curated directory of muralists and street artists, and uses example styles to define scope. It differentiates itself from the sibling get_muralist_profile by emphasizing directory search rather than individual profiles. However, the geographic scope is slightly overstated: 'Europe' conflicts with the schema's Dutch-only region parameter.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: 'Use this when someone wants to find, hire, or commission a mural artist.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. No exclusions or alternative routing to siblings are mentioned, and the Netherlands-only limitation is not called out.

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