open-met-explorer

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

Adds value beyond annotations by describing post-opening behavior ('keep your chat handoff short and UI-focused'). Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint; description does not contradict them.

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?

Four sentences, each purposeful: defines the tool, instructs on query parameter, advises post-opening behavior, and mentions alternative tool. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 interactive nature, output schema existence, and annotations, description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, alternative, and post-behavior. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds context like recommending 'q' for live search and default behavior of hasImages. Baseline is 3, and the description provides helpful but not critical additional insight.

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 verb 'Open', resource 'interactive Met Explorer app', and purpose 'browsing and filtering objects'. Distinguishes from sibling get-museum-object by specifying alternative use case.

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 advises to pass 'q' for exploration intents, instructs to keep chat handoff short and UI-focused after opening, and directs users to get-museum-object for deeper details on a specific object ID.

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