heritage_browse_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool searches via CKAN DataStore and lists parameters and return format. It does not contradict annotations but adds limited contextual behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise: a single-purpose sentence, a prerequisite note, and an Args/Returns section. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, the Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, adding minor value.

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 presence of an output schema (context signals indicate output schema exists), the description adequately covers prerequisites, pagination, and response format options. It could be more specific about the returned fields, but overall it is sufficient for tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for each parameter (e.g., resource_id, query, limit). The description's Args section mostly restates these with minor examples (e.g., 'Zürich' for query). Schema coverage is effectively 100% from the provided schema, so the description adds little extra meaning.

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 clearly states the tool searches objects within a SNM museum collection dataset via CKAN DataStore. It uses a specific verb ('durchsuchen') and resource ('Sammlungsdatensatz'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the prerequisite from 'heritage_search_museum_datasets', implying this tool operates on a single dataset.

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 description explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Resource-ID aus heritage_search_museum_datasets', guiding the agent on when to use this tool. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the prerequisite strongly implies the tool is for browsing a specific dataset after obtaining its resource ID.

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