met_object

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

No annotations are provided, but the description implies a read-only lookup of 'full details.' It does not disclose return size, image/field richness, error behavior for invalid IDs, or whether the response is cached, leaving some behavioral context unspecified for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, well-formed sentence with the resource and key front-loaded. No filler.

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, single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. Additional detail on what 'full details' contains or how errors surface would complete it.

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% for the single objectID parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description's 'by object ID' phrasing restates rather than adding format or source context beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 (Get) and resource (Met Museum artwork) with the lookup key (object ID). It clearly differs from search-oriented siblings like met_search, though it does not name any 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?

Usage is implied: retrieve a single artwork when you already have its object ID, versus browsing/searching. No explicit when-to-use or when-not/alternative guidance is given.

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