smithsonian_search

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as returning 'matching records with basic metadata' and listing covered museums. However, it claims filtering by 'museum, date' without corresponding schema parameters, and the only way to filter is via query syntax (like 'unit_code:NASM'), which is only partially disclosed in the schema. This mild inconsistency reduces transparency.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, provides key details (record count, filter types, output type), and adds a useful museum coverage list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies what is returned ('basic metadata'), covers the museums included, and notes the scale. The only gap is a clearer specification of output fields or structure, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the schema's parameter documentation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the query concept by mentioning filterable facets (keyword, museum, date), which adds some meaning not fully captured by the schema alone (e.g., museum via unit codes). It does not elaborate on limit or offset beyond what the schema provides, so it does not meaningfully exceed the baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search Smithsonian Institution collections.' It adds scope with '11M+ records across all museums' and distinct filters ('keyword, museum, date'), effectively distinguishing from sibling tools like smithsonian_detail, which likely handles individual record details rather than 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 conveys clear context for when to use the tool: searching Smithsonian collections. It mentions common filter types and coverage, providing enough situational guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar tasks, such as using smithsonian_detail for specific record lookup.

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