clasate_item_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the record shape varies per item, explains optional image_url/pdf_url/sketchfab_url fields, and mentions the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. It does not cover error behavior or response envelope, but nothing suggests a write or destructive operation.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation, the second describes returns, and the third adds licensing. The license sentence is useful context but not strictly invocation guidance, and the return sentence is dense, so a perfect conciseness score isn't warranted.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it explains return values, variable field presence, optional URLs, and licensing. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It defines `k` as the stable key, explains where to get it, and clarifies that `tit` is a cosmetic slug that doesn't need to be exact. This is meaningful semantic guidance beyond the bare schema types.

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 (Get) and resource (full record for one classified cultural good) and anchors the call to a stable key `k`. It also distinguishes itself from clasate_search by referencing search results as the source of `k` and `tit`, so an agent can tell the detail lookup from the search tool.

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 clear workflow guidance: get `k` and `tit` from clasate_search() results, and clarifies that `tit` is only a cosmetic slug that doesn't need to be exact. It does not explicitly state a when-not-to-use condition or name an alternative tool for browsing summaries, but the intended usage is strongly implied.

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