google-image-search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions billing credits, which is a minor behavioral detail, but it does not disclose any other behaviors such as what the search returns, limitations, or side effects. The deprecation status is in the title but not in the description, which is a missed opportunity.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It is a single sentence that provides minimal information, so while it is not verbose, it fails to earn its place by adding meaningful content.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect. The deprecation status is only in the title, not the description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning of 'max' or 'keyword' beyond the schema's example values. The description adds no value to parameter understanding.

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 only states 'Image Search Billing per call: 1 Credits.' It does not clearly state what the tool does beyond the name 'Search V1 (deprecated)'. The verb 'Search' is implied but not explicitly described, and there is no differentiation from the sibling tool 'get_v2'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is deprecated or suggest using 'get_v2' instead, which is a critical omission given the sibling tool exists.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a billing cost ('1 Credits') and implies a read-only image search, but it does not describe result format, pagination, filters, rate limits, or other operational behavior. This is minimal transparency at best.

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 short and front-loaded with no filler, but it is under-specified for a tool of this complexity. It is concise in form yet not appropriately sized because it omits essential context.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling tool, this description is severely incomplete. It only states domain and billing cost, leaving the agent without enough information to select or invoke the tool confidently.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. The input schema already covers 75% of parameters, but for a tool with 8 optional parameters, the description should provide some guidance about which parameters matter or how they interact; it provides none.

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 identifies a domain and action: 'Image Search (V2)'. The version marker distinguishes it from the sibling get_v1, and the title adds 'recommended', but no explicit differentiation from get_v1 is provided beyond the version label.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_v1, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The title's 'recommended' is a weak signal, but the description itself provides no usage context or alternatives.

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