tool_search_artworks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is minimal and does not mention non-obvious behaviors such as whether the tool supports fuzzy search, case sensitivity, or what happens with empty queries. This is a basic search tool, so the lack of detailed behavior is somewhat acceptable, but more context would help.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly expanded to differentiate from siblings, but it is not verbose. Every word earns 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 output schema exists (not shown but referenced in context), the description does not need to explain return values. However, given the tool has 3 parameters and 8 siblings, the description is sparse. It does not specify if the search is case-insensitive, supports partial matching, or if there are rate limits. For a general search tool, minimal but adequate.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The schema already describes 'query' as a search term including artist, theme, period, style, etc., and 'museum' specifies the supported museums. The description does not add much beyond the schema, but the schema itself is thorough. The description adds no new meaning, but since schema coverage is 100%, 4 is merited.

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 'Kunstwerke in Museumssammlungen suchen' clearly states it searches artworks in museum collections. It distinguishes from siblings like tool_search_by_artist and tool_search_by_department by being a general-purpose search across all fields. The title is not provided, but the name 'tool_search_artworks' aligns well with the purpose.

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 implicitly states when to use the tool (general search across museums), but provides no guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from siblings like tool_search_by_artist. With eight sibling tools, explicit alternatives are missing, making it hard for the agent to choose correctly.

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