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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the data being from the Smithsonian CC0 subset and lists returned fields, but does not reveal any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already cover.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first enumerates returned fields, and the second provides critical usage guidance. No unnecessary words or 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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and essential fields. The tool's simplicity (single parameter) and the presence of annotations make the description sufficiently complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (id) with schema description coverage at 100%. The schema already explains the parameter's purpose and format, including example IDs and the instruction to use smithsonian.search first. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieves the full record for a Smithsonian Open Access item by ID, listing key fields (title, unit code, license, etc.). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool smithsonian.search by instructing to use search first to find IDs.

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 explicitly instructs to use smithsonian.search to find IDs first, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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