wellcome_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 adds valuable context: 'No API key' (access requirement), 'mostly CC-BY or Public Domain Mark' (licensing behavior), and mentions that 'images' mode returns 'direct IIIF image hits' (output format). However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a search tool.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, the second efficiently delivers parameter guidance and contextual notes. Every clause earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description gives a reasonably complete picture: the target collection, content focus, access requirement (no API key), and the two result kinds. It does not specify response schema or pagination, but for a simple search tool with three parameters, this is adequate. It also distinguishes from siblings through the UK-specific collection context.

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 low (33%), but the description compensates by explaining the 'kind' parameter clearly: kind='works' for catalogue entries and kind='images' for IIIF image hits. This adds meaning beyond the bare enum. pageSize is not discussed, but its name and default make it self-explanatory; overall, the description provides meaningful parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Search the Wellcome Collection catalogue (UK)' – a specific verb and resource that immediately identifies the tool's function and scope. It further distinguishes from sibling search tools by naming the unique collection and explicitly dividing searches into 'works' and 'images' modes, making the purpose 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 provides clear usage context: it explains the meaning of the 'kind' parameter with concrete examples ('works' vs 'images') and notes that no API key is required, which sets expectations. It also hints at content relevance ('medical/scientific/esoteric/astrological history'). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like europeana_search or wellcome_get_work, so it stops short of a 5.

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