daily_art

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the deterministic behavior (date-seeded, same artwork on repeated calls), the two modes (daily piece vs. search), and the return structure. It also discloses that no API key is needed. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only art retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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 brief, with two short paragraphs and a clear return list. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value—no fluff. The structure is easy to scan and understand.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the two behaviors, the deterministic nature, the search language note, and the exact return fields. There are no critical gaps for an AI agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema provides only a bare 'keyword' parameter with no description (0% schema coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that without a keyword, the tool returns the piece of the day, and with a keyword it searches, giving examples like 'monet', 'cat', 'moon'. This is rich semantic information 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'One artwork a day from the Art Institute of Chicago's public-domain collection.' It clearly specifies the resource (artwork from Art Institute of Chicago) and the action (retrieve one artwork per day), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the keyword search mode, which covers both daily piece and search functionality.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool with and without a keyword, and notes that English terms work best. It also mentions that no API key is needed, a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it misses the 'when-not' and 'alternatives' aspects.

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