search-museum-objects

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

With no annotations, the description handles transparency. It discloses the OAI-PMH protocol, the inability to do full-text search, and that it returns identifiers only. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or pagination behavior (though resumptionToken hints at it). It adds some value beyond the schema but could be more explicit about operational constraints.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies limitations and usage constraints, and the third explains how the output should be used. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 tool has 4 parameters, none required, and an output schema exists. The description covers the key aspects: what it returns (identifiers), how to use them (with get-museum-object), and the constraint to filter. It does not explain pagination in detail or error handling, but for a listing tool, this is largely sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by stating that filtering by date or Set is required, which reinforces the purpose of 'from', 'until', and 'set' parameters. However, it does not add new information beyond what the schema already provides. The description for 'resumptionToken' is not reiterated but is clear in 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 verb 'harvests' and the resource 'list of object identifiers from the Städel Museum'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the use of OAI-PMH, the lack of full-text search, and the requirement to filter by date or Set, and it explicitly connects to the sibling get-museum-object tool.

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 tells when to use the tool (to get identifiers via OAI-PMH) and when not to (no full-text search). It specifies required constraints (must filter by date or Set) and mentions the output's purpose for use with get-museum-object. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list-sets or open-staedel-explorer, but the context is clear enough.

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