List Museums

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned names are the ones the museum argument accepts, which is genuinely useful cross-tool context, but most of the remaining text restates the payload rather than disclosing behavior beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the payload enumerated first and the routing hint second. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the definition needs only to state what is listed and where to go for counts, both of which it does. Nothing required to invoke this tool correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'the names the museum argument accepts' usefully ties the output to a parameter used by sibling tools, though it is not a parameter of this tool itself.

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 names a concrete resource (Smithsonian units in Open Access) and enumerates the payload it surfaces: codes, names, record_type values, and the museum argument names. It is distinguishable from get_collection_stats via the explicit counts redirect, though the jargon (record_type, museum argument) assumes domain context.

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?

It supplies one explicit alternative — 'For counts use get_collection_stats' — which routes the agent correctly for the counting case. It implies the primary use (looking up valid museum codes/names for other calls) without spelling out when-not-to-use or naming the search/object siblings.

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