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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: result shape (gifIds with titles and sizes), 50-per-page paging from offset, and the fact that searches consume no credits.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers usage, return shape, pagination and the hand-off to import_gif. Dense but nearly every clause carries operative information; the stickers-vs-gifs visual explanation is slightly verbose but aids selection.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract (gifIds, titles, sizes) and pagination model, plus cost and next-step behavior. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and chain into import_gif.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: page size of 50, the offset stepping pattern (0, 50, 100...), and the visual distinction behind 'kind' (cut-outs on footage vs full rectangles). Only projectId is left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search GIPHY's GIFs and stickers') and enumerates the content types it surfaces (reactions, memes, animated text, emoji), which separates it from sibling search tools like search_stock, search_library and search_logo. The follow-up relationship with import_gif is stated directly.

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?

Gives explicit conditional usage: pass 'query' for a search, null for trending, and says to call import_gif afterward with the same query/kind/offset. No exclusion against neighbouring search_* tools is stated, so the agent must still infer which search surface is correct.

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