Get Artwork Details

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds detail on returned fields (e.g., high-res image URLs, public domain status), which provides additional behavioral context. However, it does not disclose any potential rate limits, response size constraints, or other behaviors beyond the field list.

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 concise at two sentences. It front-loads the key output fields and provides clear usage guidance in the second sentence. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 required integer parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema), the description is fully sufficient. It lists all relevant return fields and instructs on how to obtain the necessary input. The existence of an output schema means the description does not need to detail return structure.

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 input schema is fully documented (100% coverage) with examples and guidance on finding object IDs. The tool description reinforces the use of met.search but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it meets the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('full details for a Met Museum artwork'). It enumerates the fields returned (title, artist, etc.), which helps an agent understand the scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'met.art.search' by directing users to find IDs there first.

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 states to use met.search to find object IDs first, providing clear guidance on how to use this tool in conjunction with its sibling. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but for a simple lookup, this is sufficient.

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