Search Rijksmuseum Collection

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns 'Linked Open Data object IDs' and mentions the CC-BY license, offering some behavioral context but not exhaustive details like pagination or rate limits.

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 long, front-loaded with the main action and parameters, followed by a usage hint and contextual license info. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and workflow. It lacks details on pagination or sorting but is sufficient for a search tool that directs to a details endpoint.

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?

Although the input schema already describes parameters, the description enriches them with concrete examples (e.g., 'Night Watch', 'portrait', '1642', 'SK-C-5') and states that the output is Linked Open Data object IDs, adding significant semantic value 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 clearly states the tool searches 800,000+ artworks at the Rijksmuseum by title, description, creation date, or object number. It also mentions the return of Linked Open Data object IDs and directs to rijks.details for full metadata, distinguishing it from other tools.

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 provides clear guidance to use this tool for searching and then use rijks.details for full metadata. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other contexts, the specificity to the Rijksmuseum implicitly differentiates it from other museum tools like met.art.search.

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