Get a Whitney artwork

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing that fields are omitted when empty, that alt_text may be AI-generated and flagged by alt_text_is_ai_generated, and that a 404 message is returned for invalid IDs. This provides valuable behavioral context not covered by the annotations alone.

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 well-structured: a one‑line purpose statement, concise args list, return structure, and error note. It may be slightly long due to listing the return fields (which might also be in the output schema), but every section adds useful information—args, behavior, and errors—so it remains efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 get‑by‑ID tool with strong annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to obtain the ID, the optional response format, the structure and omission behavior of the return, and error handling. No critical information is missing.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the id is 'the TMS ID, as returned by whitney_search_artworks'—linking it to the search tool and confirming the ID source. It also gives context for response_format ('for reading' vs 'for machine processing'), which is not fully captured by the schema's enum description.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one artwork's full record') with the retrieval method ('by ID'). It also explicitly references the sibling tool 'whitney_search_artworks' as the source of the ID, which distinguishes it from other get/search tools without ambiguity.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you already have an artwork ID from 'whitney_search_artworks'. It also explains the optional response_format parameter ('markdown' for reading, 'json' for machine processing), and notes the error behavior for a non-existent ID. This gives explicit context for selection and invocation.

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