Get artwork image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that not every record has an image and that artic requests usually fail with 403. However, it does not specify the returned image format (e.g., binary, base64) or any size limits. The mention of 'short caption' is vague. More details on what exactly 'return it' means would improve transparency.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case and includes essential behavioral notes in a second paragraph. It is concise enough, but could be slightly shorter by combining sentences. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is logical.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: when to use, failure modes, fallback strategy, and return of caption. It does not detail the caption format or the exact image return mechanism, but these are minor omissions. The description is largely complete for an AI agent to decide correctly.

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% and descriptions exist for both parameters. The description adds extra context: it explains that the 'source' parameter is the museum and that artic has issues, and that 'id' is from search results. This provides real-world semantic value beyond the schema definitions, earning a score above baseline.

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 action ('download the image for a single artwork') and the result ('return it so it can actually be viewed, plus a short caption'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that it retrieves the image data, not just metadata, and mentions fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., base64 or URL), which could be clearer.

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 provides excellent guidance: 'Use this whenever the user wants to see a work, or when you need to judge what a work actually depicts rather than trusting its title.' It also explicitly warns against using for Art Institute ('artic') due to bot challenges, and suggests preferring other sources and falling back to the museumUrl. This clearly tells when to use the tool and when to avoid it.

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