heritage_search_artists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context about the full-text search mechanism across all fields and the AND-connection of multiple terms, which is not captured by annotations. This enhances transparency beyond the structured metadata.

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 front-loaded with purpose and provides context about the database and search mechanics. However, it includes a parameter list that duplicates the schema, making it slightly longer than necessary. The structure is logical and each part earns its place, though conciseness could be improved by omitting redundant parameter details.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers the search behavior, database size, source attribution, and return format. It does not explain pagination details or response structure, but these are likely in the output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand how to use the tool.

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 0% per context signals (though schema actually contains descriptions). The description lists each parameter with its type and meaning, but these exactly mirror the schema's descriptions. It adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it merely meets the minimum compensation requirement for low 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?

The description clearly states it searches Swiss artists in the SIKART database, which is distinct from sibling tools like heritage_get_artist (retrieving a single artist) or heritage_search_helveticat (searching library catalog). The verb 'Sucht' and resource 'Künstler·innen in den SIKART-Daten' are specific.

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 implies usage for searching artists via full-text across all fields with AND logic, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like heritage_get_artist for specific lookups or heritage_cross_search for cross-referencing. No exclusion criteria or contextual hints are provided.

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