Get artwork detail

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description adds genuine value by warning that returned text is third-party authored, untrusted, and must be treated as data rather than instructions. That prompt-injection caution is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express. It stops short of 5 by not mentioning whether comments are truncated or bounded.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by the id requirement and the safety caveat. Nothing is repeated and every clause earns its place.

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, enumerating the returned fields is the right compensating move, and the injection warning closes the biggest trust gap for open-world third-party content. The only remaining hole is whether the embedded comments are paginated or capped when an artwork has many.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics; baseline is 3. The description's 'from a portfolio' mirrors the schema's own note ('from artsonia_get_portfolio') and adds minimal new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one artwork') and enumerates exactly what comes back: title, artist screen-name, view count, project/assignment name, and comments. The contrast with list-style siblings like artsonia_list_comments is implied but never made explicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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 input sourcing guidance ('Pass an artwork_id from a portfolio'), which tells the agent where the required id comes from. However, it never says when to choose this over artsonia_download_artwork, artsonia_list_comments, or artsonia_get_portfolio — usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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