smithsonian_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the search defaults to CC0-only images and requires an API key, which is valuable. Missing are details about return format, pagination, error handling, or what happens without a valid key, so behavioral disclosure is partial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by essential details on default behavior and prerequisites. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple search tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope and authentication, but lacks return value expectations, parameter detail, and pagination/error behavior. This leaves the agent with moderate completeness; it is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at 'onlyCC0' via 'defaults to CC0-only images' and implies 'query' from the act of searching. 'pageSize' receives no explanation, and there is no explicit mapping of parameters to behavior, leaving the agent with limited semantic guidance.

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 searches Smithsonian Open Access with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Smithsonian Open Access'), distinguishing it from sibling museum search tools (e.g., wellcome_search, met_search). The item count (4.5M+) adds useful context without confusing the core purpose.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for Smithsonian Open Access searches, which implicitly steers usage away from sibling tools for other institutions. It also mentions a required API key, an important precondition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions.

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