Get a Smithsonian 3D asset

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the output is a 'normalized summary' but does not elaborate on what normalization entails or disclose other behaviors like rate limits or authentication needs. With rich annotations, the description adds moderate value.

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 a single, 12-word sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no extraneous information.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. The description is sufficient for understanding the tool's role among many siblings, but the minimalism leaves some questions about the 'normalized summary' concept. Still, it is largely complete for agent selection.

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%, and the description does not mention the modelId parameter at all. While the parameter name and requirement are clear, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It should explain what modelId is or how to obtain it.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('normalized summary of one Smithsonian Open Access 3D model'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like smithsonian_search_assets (search) and smithsonian_list_files (list files), making the tool's unique purpose obvious.

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 implies usage after searching for a model, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like smithsonian_search_assets or smithsonian_list_files. No when-not conditions or alternative names are provided.

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