tool_get_met_departments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states what the tool returns (ID and name) and implies a read operation via 'abrufen', but does not disclose idempotency, caching, authentication requirements, or other behavioral traits. Adequate for a simple retrieval, 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 sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by return value. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, simple list retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose and what the return contains (ID and name), which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 all departments of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, using a specific verb ('abrufen') and resource ('Abteilungen'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on artworks, artists, or highlights.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The hint 'fuer gezielte Suchen' implies utility for filtering, but it does not direct an agent to use this before search_by_department or mention that it provides IDs needed for other tools.

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