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

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent; the description goes far beyond by disclosing that images are illustrative, that the listing is published with the «صورة توضيحية» note without watermark, that the user should be told, and that they can swap in a real photo at a specific URL. This is exactly the kind of consequence-level context an agent needs.

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-loaded with purpose and routing, then constraints; every sentence carries information. Slightly penalized because the content is fully duplicated in Arabic, roughly doubling length without adding new semantics.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still characterizes the return (verified https image URLs) and downstream usage. Combined with 100% schema coverage and clear behavioral disclosure, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents query, query_en, purpose, and limit with examples and enum meanings. The description adds only the downstream use of the returned URL ('pass the chosen one in `images`'), not new parameter syntax or defaults, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Find a suitable image for a listing or store product from our search engine') and names the exact trigger condition (user cannot supply a public photo URL). It also clarifies it is not a generic web search, distinguishing it from siblings like web_search or search_souq.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (no public photo URL available, chat attachments not public), where the output goes (pass chosen URL in `images` of publish_listing / add_store_product), and what is excluded (classified-ad and social sites). Clear when-and-where guidance with no inference needed.

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