tool_get_artwork_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, nor any side effects. However, the tool name and schema suggest a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 short sentence that states the core purpose clearly. It is concise and front-loaded, no wasted words.

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 is a simple single-artwork detail retrieval with an output schema (which presumably defines the return structure), the description covers the basics. However, it could mention that details include specific fields or that museum parameter affects which artwork details are retrieved. The output schema likely handles the rest.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already says. It is a simple lookup by ID with an optional museum selection.

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 it retrieves complete details of an artwork, using the verb 'abrufen' (retrieve) and the object 'Vollstaendige Details zu einem Kunstwerk' (complete details of an artwork). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tool_search_artworks which likely return lists rather than full details.

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 on when to use this tool over siblings. Siblings include search tools and a comparison tool, but the description does not clarify that this tool is for a single artwork by ID. Context of required vs optional parameters is left implicit.

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