europeana_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals a critical prerequisite (EUROPEANA_API_KEY env var) and a behavioral default (open-licensed media only), but does not describe what the search returns, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling. The default is also already visible in the schema, so the description adds less unique value here.

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 two compact sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then supplies the default behavior and the API key requirement. Every clause earns its place and the structure is ideal for quick scanning.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential facts for invoking the tool: what it searches, the default open-license filter, and the required environment variable. It does not describe the return shape, but that is not critical for correct invocation. The inclusion of example institutions helps with the provider parameter. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 50% (onlyOpen and provider have descriptions). The description does not clarify the semantics of 'query' or 'pageSize', though these are self-explanatory from names. It provides helpful context about provider examples by naming institutions, but overall it adds limited value beyond the schema for the remaining parameters.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Search Europeana', a specific verb and resource. It also names the aggregator and examples of included institutions, which clearly distinguishes this search tool from sibling tools like wellcome_search or met_search, and from europeana_get_record which is for retrieving a specific record.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for searching a broad EU cultural heritage aggregator. While it does not explicitly say 'use X instead', the scope and examples implicitly signal when this tool is appropriate versus siblings. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions, but the context is strong enough for an agent.

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