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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context—newest-first ordering, inclusion of uploads and the brand logo, and returned placement URLs—but does not discuss pagination behavior or limits beyond the schema.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the resource, its contents, ordering, and returned URLs with no wasted wording. The search capability is appended efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and the description explains the library contents and ordering. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter read-only list tool, though it omits explicit when-to-use guidance against upload_image.

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 both limit and search fully. The description reinforces that search is by image name, but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the structured fields.

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 the resource as the merchant's image library, including uploads and the brand logo, and notes ordering and usable URLs. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling upload_image tool, keeping it below a 5.

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?

It mentions searching by name but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_image, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied through the content description.

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