si_terms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement (SMITHSONIAN_API_KEY), but says nothing about pagination/limit behavior, rate limits, or result shape. The auth note is real added value, but the safety/operational profile is thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the enumerated vocabulary. The category list is long but earns its place as the key semantic payload; nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the auth requirement is covered. However, two of three parameters remain undefined and there is no guidance on result size or how to consume the vocabulary, leaving the definition only adequate for a 3-param tool.

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 must compensate. It does document the accepted values for the required `category` parameter (culture, data_source, date, place, topic, unit_code, etc.), which is genuinely useful, but `limit` and `starts_with` are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (the vocabulary for a search field), and enumerates the exact categories the field accepts. An agent can tell this is a lookup/controlled-vocabulary tool rather than a search tool like si_search, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Useful for building fielded queries" implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. si_search for the actual query). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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