Get Rijksmuseum Artwork Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds value by detailing the output format (Linked Art JSON-LD, CIDOC CRM) and the specific fields returned, which enriches the agent's understanding of the behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence covers purpose and returned fields; the second provides usage guidance and attribution. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It mentions the key fields, the output format, and the prerequisite search tool. The attribution (CC-BY) is also noted, which is helpful compliance information.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter description already containing the example ID and usage instruction. The description repeats the instruction but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves full artwork details by object ID, listing specific fields (title in multiple languages, object number, creation date, etc.) and notes the output format (Linked Art JSON-LD). It distinguishes itself from the sibling rijks.art.search by directing users to use search first to find IDs.

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 instructs 'Use rijks.search to find object IDs first', providing a clear prerequisite and alternative. This tells the agent when to use this tool (after obtaining an ID) and when to use the sibling tool (to search).

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