search-portraits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the data source and result shape (matched individuals with ID, book source, biographical snippet, and links), but it leaves unspecified behaviors such as how multiple filters combine, whether an empty query is allowed, and how pagination works.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and criteria, the second summarizes the return values. Every clause carries information and the description avoids simply restating the tool name.

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?

The description covers core purpose and output, and the schema documents all 10 parameters, so a basic invocation is feasible. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves gaps around filter combination semantics, empty-query behavior, and pagination interactions.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and every parameter already has a meaningful description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The prose adds a useful category-level overview of the search criteria but does not need to repeat parameter-level details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('Svenskt Porträttarkiv'), and enumerates the search dimensions (name, birth/death year, birth place, occupation, free text). It clearly describes what results come back, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools get-portrait-details and get-portrait-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 intended use is implied: call this tool to search the portrait archive for matching individuals, presumably before fetching details or images. However, the description never states when not to use it or names the alternatives, so routing to siblings is left to inference.

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