tool_compare_museums

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 conveys the basic search-and-compare action but fails to mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or the nature of the comparison (e.g., merged results vs. separate lists). The presence of an output schema may partially compensate, but the description itself adds little transparency.

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 a single, efficient German sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices some informative detail that could aid understanding without harming conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks completeness for a compare tool. It does not explain the comparison mechanism (e.g., side-by-side or merged results), and the mention of 'beiden Museen' is ambiguous without naming the museums. Given the complexity of comparing across collections, more context is needed.

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 'query' parameter, providing its meaning (artist, subject, style, period). The tool description does not add further semantics beyond restating 'Suchbegriff'. Per guidelines, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and no extra value is added.

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 German description clearly states the tool's function: searching a term in both museums simultaneously and comparing results. The verb 'suchen' and 'vergleichen' with the resource 'beiden Museen' uniquely identifies its purpose. However, it does not name which two museums, leaving ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like tool_search_artworks or tool_search_by_artist. The description merely states the action without explaining scenarios where comparing both museums is preferred over single-museum searches, leaving the agent without decision support.

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