smithsonian_detail

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the types of data returned (images, provenance, dimensions, extended metadata). It does not disclose rate limits or error behavior, but for a simple read-only detail endpoint, this is sufficient and exceeds the baseline.

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 and resource, and includes only necessary information. No redundant or vague language.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, the required input, the content scope, and the correct workflow. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema provides a 100% description of the single 'id' parameter, and the description reinforces it by explaining the ID comes from search results. This adds contextual meaning beyond the schema (e.g., provenance of the ID) rather than simply restating the field.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('Smithsonian collection record by ID'), and it explicitly lists contents (images, provenance, dimensions, extended metadata). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as the detail lookup after smithsonian_search.

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 explicitly says 'Use smithsonian_search first to find record IDs,' naming the sibling search tool and providing clear sequencing. This effectively tells the agent when to use this tool (after a search) and implies it is not for searching.

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