heritage_browse_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of return format and prerequisite adds context but does not significantly extend beyond what annotations imply. No behavioral aspects like rate limits or auth are mentioned, but annotations suffice.

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?

Structured with a concise intro, prerequisite line, bullet-pointed args, and returns line. Every sentence is purposeful and front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words, appropriate length.

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 rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, input parameters, and return format. It explains pagination via limit/offset and response_format choices. It feels complete for a browsing tool, with no missing critical information.

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?

Description adds value beyond the schema by listing parameters with examples (e.g., query: 'Zürich', 'Karl der Grosse', 'Gold') and clarifying the prerequisite for resource_id. Although schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's purpose and 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?

Description clearly states it searches objects within an SNM collection dataset via CKAN DataStore. The verb 'Durchsucht' and specific resource 'Objekte innerhalb eines SNM-Sammlungsdatensatzes' provide clear purpose. The prerequisite for resource ID from heritage_search_museum_datasets further distinguishes it from sibling tools like heritage_cross_search.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite of having a resource ID from heritage_search_museum_datasets, guiding when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for similar tasks, though sibling names give implicit context.

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