Get artwork detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that comments are included in the result, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, comment volume, or auth requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and returning fields before the parameter note. No filler, 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, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating the fields. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits any note on result size or comment pagination.

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 the single parameter is fully documented with a numeric pattern and source hint, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'from a portfolio' phrasing restates the schema's own 'from artsonia_get_portfolio' note rather than adding new 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one artwork') and enumerates the returned fields (title, artist screen-name, view count, project, comments), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like artsonia_list_comments or artsonia_download_artwork, but the singular-scope wording makes the distinction reasonably 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?

'Pass an artwork_id from a portfolio' gives the provenance of the required input, which implies when the tool is usable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., list_comments for bulk comment retrieval), leaving usage largely inferred.

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