Get artwork details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that rights come back in two fields (isPublicDomain and license) with caveats about when isPublicDomain is set, and notes that fields are only present where the museum publishes them. This goes beyond basic functionality, though it could mention potential missing fields or error behavior.

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 two well-organized paragraphs. The first states the main purpose and fields, the second explains rights fields in detail. Every sentence adds value, with no waste. Front-loaded with 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?

Given the tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about return fields and their semantics. It mentions limitations ('where the museum publishes them'). Could be improved by noting possible null fields or error cases, but overall adequate.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds that the id is 'as returned by search_artworks' and lists the sources in the enum context. This adds minor value but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool fetches full catalog details for a single artwork by source and id, listing specific fields like medium, dimensions, department, culture, credit line, and rights. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as search_artworks (summary) and get_artwork_image (image).

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 explicitly says to use this tool to confirm attribution or rights before relying on a work, and notes that search results carry only a summary. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternative tools.

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