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

Annotations declare non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the work happens over external web sources, and 'waits until it has it' discloses that the call blocks until a result is obtained rather than returning immediately. It stops short of saying what happens on failure or whether an existing image on the slide gets replaced.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the blocking-behavior note. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 and a write-side effect on a slide, the description should say what the agent gets back and what happens when no photo is found, plus how this differs from deck_place_image. Those gaps are real but modest given the fully documented schema and informative annotations.

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 query, slide, and document_id are already fully documented, including the 'real subject, in English' hint for query. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 action chain: search real photo sources (Wikipedia, Commons, Openverse, Pexels) and place the result on the slide. The verb+resource is clear and the source list is concrete. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling deck_place_image, so an agent must infer that this one searches while that one presumably places a known image.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for when you need an actual photograph of a named subject rather than a generated or pre-supplied asset. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer deck_place_image or deck_list_images, and no guidance about what to do if no photo is found.

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