Get Conservation History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. However, it adds value by listing the types of data returned (technical examinations, conservation events, inscription count, provenance excerpt). No contradiction with annotations.

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 at 6 sentences, well-structured with purpose first, then content, then exclusions. No filler or redundant 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 output schema exists, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns without needing to detail the output structure. The single parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema, and the context signals show high coverage. The description is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% already describing objectNumber. The description adds context that the tool is accessed by objectNumber after a search, but does not provide new semantic details beyond what the schema already includes.

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 it provides conservation/forensics record for one artwork, specifying technical examinations and restoration treatment history. It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing what it returns and what it does not (e.g., not general metadata, not transcribed inscriptions).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: follows get_artwork_details or a search result by objectNumber. Provides clear exclusions with alternative tools: use get_artwork_details for general metadata, search_inscriptions for transcribed inscriptions, and collection_stats for aggregate counts.

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