artic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (name, birth/death dates, description, artwork IDs), which adds value beyond the input schema, but does not cover behavioral traits like error handling, permissions, or rate limits. The description is consistent but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists return details in a single, well-structured sentence. Every part earns its place without redundancy, making it highly concise and clear.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete: it states the action, input requirement, and return values. However, it could improve by mentioning error cases or output structure more explicitly, but it's adequate for this context.

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 schema already documents the 'id' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but does not need to compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Get an artist record'), resource ('by numeric ID'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on artist data rather than artwork or exhibitions. It provides concrete details about what is retrieved, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage by specifying 'by numeric ID', suggesting it's for known artist IDs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_artworks or provide exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than explicitly guided.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific artwork details (title, artist, etc.) and image ID, which adds context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks information on behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return values without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the parameter's role. However, it could be more complete by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or read-only nature, which would help an agent use it correctly in varied contexts.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', clearly documenting it as the ARTIC artwork ID. The description adds value by specifying that it's for 'a single artwork by its numeric ID' and implies the scope of retrieval, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, a baseline above 3 is appropriate as the description complements without redundancy.

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 specific action ('Get full details') and resource ('a single artwork by its numeric ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_artist, get_exhibitions, and search_artworks which target different resources or operations. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 usage by specifying 'by its numeric ID' and listing return fields, which suggests it's for retrieving detailed information on a known artwork. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_artworks (e.g., for unknown IDs or broader queries), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format (title, short description, status) but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a read operation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds return details concisely in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return data but lacks depth on usage context, behavioral traits, or integration with siblings, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or usage tips, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('current and recent exhibitions at the Art Institute of Chicago'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools (get_artist, get_artwork, search_artworks) by focusing on exhibitions rather than artists or artworks. The inclusion of return data (title, short description, status) further clarifies what it provides.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like search_artworks, which might also return exhibition-related data. It mentions the scope ('current and recent') but does not specify timeframes, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('list of artworks with title, artist, date, medium, and image ID'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or pagination, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but potentially complex search operation.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and input, the second specifies the output. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making every sentence earn 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete—it covers purpose, usage, and return format. However, it lacks some behavioral details (e.g., error handling or result limits), preventing a perfect score.

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 schema fully documents both parameters (query and limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as search syntax or result ordering, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Search'), resource ('Art Institute of Chicago collection'), and scope ('by keyword'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_artist, get_artwork, and get_exhibitions which retrieve specific entities rather than performing keyword searches.

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 usage for keyword-based searches of the collection, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., using get_artwork for known IDs), which prevents a perfect score.

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