Explore Topic

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints by disclosing non-obvious behavior: results are a sample, results shift between calls, image-bearing objects are preferred, and matches are spread proportionally across museums and types. The only nuance is that 'calls can return different samples' sits in tension with idempotentHint=true, though per MCP semantics idempotency concerns side effects (this tool is read-only), so it is not a true contradiction.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the return shape and then the routing guidance. The final sampling-caveat sentence earns its place but the opening sentence is quite packed, slightly hurting scannability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description still adds the return shape (counts by museum and type) and the sampling caveat, leaving nothing an agent needs 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% (baseline 3), but the description adds real semantic value for the required topic parameter: matching prefers objects whose title, type, or subject names the topic, which tells the agent how loose/strict matching behaves beyond the schema's 'every word must match' note.

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 a specific verb (explore/sample) and resource (objects about a topic), and precisely specifies the sampling behavior: proportionally spread across museums and object types with counts. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from search_objects, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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?

'Use it for open-ended browsing; use search_objects to find specific things' gives an explicit when-to-use and names the alternative with the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference about routing between the two tools.

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