tool_search_by_period

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 disclosing behavioral traits. The description is minimal and does not reveal any side effects, limitations, or special behaviors. It does not contradict annotations, as none exist. A score of 3 reflects a neutral baseline: the description is not harmful but leaves significant behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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, which is concise. It front-loads the core purpose. However, the omission of usage guidelines and behavioral context means the description is concise but not optimally helpful. The sentence earns its place, but could be expanded slightly to include when to use it.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain the interaction between period and museum, nor the expected return format (though the output schema covers that). The lack of sibling differentiation or usage context makes it inadequate for an AI agent to choose and invoke correctly without trial and error.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a use example for 'period' (e.g., 'Renaissance', 'Baroque'), which goes beyond the schema's minimal description. It also clarifies that 'museum' defaults to 'met' and accepts 'chicago'. This context helps the agent choose appropriate values, warranting a 4.

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 nach historischer Periode suchen' clearly states the verb (suchen = search) and the resource (Kunstwerke = artworks) with the dimension (historical period). It is distinct from sibling tools like tool_search_by_artist or tool_search_by_department, providing good differentiation.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context such as supported periods, error handling for invalid input, or that it restricts to a single museum. Usage is implied by the period parameter, but no explicit exclusions or trade-offs are stated.

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