find_museum_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It transparently lists the output fields and the data year (2026), implying a read-only search operation. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or parameter precedence, but for a search tool it provides strong 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return value details and example queries. Every sentence contributes meaningfully with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a search tool with no output schema: it explains what the tool returns and offers sample queries. It could slightly improve by clarifying how the optional parameters (city, query, country) combine, but the overall context is sufficient.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's example queries add some usage context but do not add new meaning about parameter formats, relationships, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 searches travel.art's catalogue of museum visitor guides, with a specific verb and resource. It lists the return content (ticket info, opening hours, address, works, route duration, link) and provides example queries, making it distinct from sibling tools like find_art_events or recommend_art_trip.

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 gives explicit example queries for when to use the tool, such as 'how to visit the Louvre' or 'Uffizi best route'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context and sibling list make the appropriate use case clear.

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