list_arts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions authentication requirement ('sys_key') which is useful, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, whether results are sorted, or what happens if filters are invalid. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a list endpoint.

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 sentence of 13 words, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose ('Get list of arts') but the authentication note at the end could be integrated or expanded. The sentence could be split to separate purpose from authentication context for better readability.

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 tool has 3 parameters (all optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the format of the 'parameters' JSON string (e.g., expected keys, operators), nor does it describe the response structure. For a list endpoint that uses a flexible filter parameter, the description should provide usage examples or constraints.

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?

The schema already has 100% description coverage, meaning each parameter (limit, offset, parameters) is documented with defaults and constraints. The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating 'with optional parameters and filters'. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate – the description does not improve understanding of parameter usage.

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 states 'Get list of arts with optional parameters and filters', which specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'arts'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_art' which retrieves a single art piece, and 'list_art_collections' which lists collections. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar list tools (e.g., 'list_external_workers' but the resource itself is enough).

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 only usage hint is 'Works with sys_key authentication', which implies the tool requires a specific authentication method, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_users' or 'get_recommended_arts'. There is no guidance on typical use cases, expected data volumes, or when not to use it.

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