Get a Whitney exhibition

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the return shape ({ record: {...} }) and states that HTML is stripped, which is not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short args list, and a return statement. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description provides everything needed: the ID source, response_format with default, and a high-level return shape. The existence of an output schema means returndetails need not be spelled out further.

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 100% for both id and response_format, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds provenance ('as returned by whitney_search_exhibitions') for id, which is helpful but not essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the full schema 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?

States the specific action 'Fetch one exhibition record by ID' and clearly identifies the resource and retrieval method. Distinguishes itself from search tools by requiring an ID, and references whitney_search_exhibitions as the source of that ID, making its role unambiguous.

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 instructs that the ID comes from whitney_search_exhibitions, implying this tool is used after a search. It does not list alternatives or state when not to use it, but the ID-based requirement and sibling names make the intended use clear.

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