met_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default filters for hasImages and isPublicDomain, the CC0 licensing of results, and the lack of an API key requirement. It also mentions the large object count and advises narrowing queries, which sets expectations about search performance. However, it does not describe the output format or pagination behavior.

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 four short sentences, each contributing important information: purpose, default filters, dataset scale, and API key requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant or filler text.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core search behavior and key defaults, but it does not mention what the search returns (e.g., object IDs) or indicate that met_get_object is needed to fetch full details. This missing workflow context makes it less complete for an agent planning multi-step interactions.

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 low (only departmentId is described). The description adds meaning to hasImages and isPublicDomain by explaining the default filters and that results are freely usable, and it advises narrow queries for the query parameter. However, it does not clarify pageSize semantics or further detail query matching behavior, leaving gaps that the description could have filled.

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 'Search the Met Museum (US)', which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions unique default filters for hasImages and isPublicDomain, distinguishing it from sibling museum search tools. This makes the tool's purpose immediately 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 provides useful usage context: defaults filter to freely usable CC0 results, there are 470k+ objects, narrow queries are recommended, and no API key is needed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or say 'use this when searching the Met', but the description and name clearly imply that. It offers guidance on how to query effectively.

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