get_random_artwork

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns random artworks and optional filters, but doesn't mention potential side effects (likely none), rate limits, or data source specifics beyond the museum. It doesn't describe response format or pagination, but for a simple retrieval, this is acceptable; a higher score would require more explicit 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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists filter options efficiently. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

For a tool with two optional parameters and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the core functionality and gives query examples. It doesn't explain the return format, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a simple retrieval, the absence is not a major gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it and how to specify filters.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds example filter syntax (e.g., 'room:G3*'), which is valuable beyond the schema's generic descriptionsunci, but since both are fully described in the schema, the added value is marginal, keeping the baseline at 3.

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 retrieves random artworks from a specific museum, distinguishing it from search or specific-lookup siblings. It mentions optional filters, which gives a sense of scope. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools to prevent confusion, though the core action is clear.

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 implies use when randomness is desired, as opposed to search_artworks or get_artwork, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings. It gives examples of filter queries, which helps usage, but no explicit 'use this for...' guidance or exclusions.

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