List Curated Sets

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by explaining what each result carries (memberCount, dominantTypes, dominantCenturies, category) and describing the category heuristic with concrete values. It does not contradict the 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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, scope, result contents, usage recommendation, sibling pairing, then exclusions. Every sentence adds distinct value and none is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, and the description still covers the key contextual gaps: result semantics, category meanings, umbrella avoidance, and alternatives. An agent has enough information to decide when to call this tool and how to shape its parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the base is strong. The description adds cross-parameter guidance not present in any single schema field: the specific minMembers/maxMembers combination of 100/200000 and the intent behind it (avoiding umbrella sets). This elevates parameter semantics from a baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse thematic sets curated by Rijksmuseum staff.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it is 'Not for keyword search across artworks — use search_artwork' and 'Not for aggregate counts — use collection_stats,' and it references browse_set for enumeration.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Use minMembers: 100, maxMembers: 200000 to avoid umbrella sets when the user wants a substantive subset.' It also names explicit alternatives for other intents, saying to pair with browse_set to enumerate members and to use search_artwork or collection_stats for other queries.

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