search_highlights

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 behavioral disclosure. It says 'discover' but does not explain query matching, pagination behavior, whether results are sorted, or what a response contains. The read-only nature must be inferred from the tool name and general semantics.

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 with no filler or duplicated schema content. It front-loads the core scope efficiently, though it lacks the extra behavioral detail that would make the concision more informative.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important operational details undocumented: what a successful call returns, how pagination works, and how the optional query filters results. An agent could make a basic call, but not with full confidence about behavior or response shape.

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 parameters from, size, and query are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but under the high-coverage baseline of 3 this is acceptable.

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 identifies the tool's scope: discovering curated highlights in the Minneapolis Institute of Art permanent collection. It distinguishes the focus from general artwork searches, though 'discover' is a softer verb than 'search' or 'list' and the distinction from sibling tools is not explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of search_artworks or get_random_artwork. The only implied context is the name and the 'highlights' scope; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing cues.

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