search_artworks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool supports Elasticsearch syntax, filters, pagination, and sorting, and gives example queries. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. These are gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single, dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and then packs capabilities efficiently. It is concise with no filler, though the dense list of examples could be slightly better organized (e.g., bullet points). Still, it earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (Elasticsearch syntax, multiple filter fields, pagination, sorting) and lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the response looks like. It does not mention that results are a list of artwork objects or how errors are handled. The essentials for calling are present, but the absence of return-format details leaves a gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by illustrating Elasticsearch field syntax (e.g., artist:"Claude Monet") and listing sort fields, but the schema already includes similar examples. The added context is helpful but not substantial beyond reinforcing what the schema documents.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource (Mia collection of 90,000+ artworks), and the mention of Elasticsearch syntax, filters, pagination, and sorting clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_artwork (single item) and get_random_artwork (random). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies use for general collection search and provides concrete examples of how to construct queries (e.g., artist:"Claude Monet"). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent based on sibling names.

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