get_artwork

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists what data will be returned. However, it does not mention behaviors such as error handling for invalid IDs, response structure, or potential rate limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 front-loads the core purpose and packs the key return categories into a compact list. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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?

With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description provides a solid summary of what the agent will receive. It could be slightly more explicit about response format or when to prefer this over search_artworks, but for a single-ID lookup the described context is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description confirms that the ID is a 'Mia object ID' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema's examples.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific artwork by its Mia object ID'), and enumerates the returned content categories. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_artworks or get_artworks_batch, which operate over sets rather than a single known ID.

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 phrase 'for a specific artwork by its Mia object ID' clearly indicates when to use this tool: when the agent already knows the ID and needs full metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is easy to infer from the sibling tool names.

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