europeana_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it provides none. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what a result entry contains, leaving the agent to guess at operational constraints for an external-API search.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient but arguably too terse, and could have spent a few more words on scope or alternatives without becoming bloated.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, for an external cultural-heritage search it omits anything about result shape, relevance fields, or the detail-lookup companion tool, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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%, so the schema already documents 'query', 'rows' (max 100, default 10), and 'start' (default 1). The description adds no query-syntax, field-scoping, or filtering guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (Europeana) and narrows the scope with concrete examples of the domain (art, books, music, film). An agent can tell what it retrieves, but the description never distinguishes it from the sibling 'europeana_record', which likely fetches a single item.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tool for retrieving an individual item. The agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point and 'europeana_record' the detail lookup.

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