tool_search_by_department

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'search artworks in a specific Met department' without disclosing behavior like result limits, handling of empty query, or required prerequisite calls (e.g., using department_id from tool_get_met_departments). The schema hints at defaults but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, earning full marks for brevity.

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions in the schema, the description provides minimal additional context. It is adequate for a simple search tool but lacks details like pagination, sorting, or example usage that would aid completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions in German (e.g., 'Maximale Anzahl Ergebnisse'). The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 'Search artworks in a specific Met department' uses a clear verb and resource, and the name combined with sibling tools (e.g., tool_get_met_departments, tool_search_artworks) implies its focused scope. However, the description itself does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like tool_search_by_artist or tool_search_by_period.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tool_search_artworks or tool_search_by_period. Sibling tool names are available but the description does not reference them or explain selection criteria.

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