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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description needs to add context. It adds concrete return-value information (IDs, titles, types, preview URLs), which helps the agent understand the outcome. However, it does not mention pagination or filtering behavior beyond the basic search.

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 concise, uses one short sentence for the main purpose and a second for tool differentiation. No wasted words, and the structure naturally front-loads the primary action.

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?

For a search tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides the essentials but lacks important context around pagination and content-type filtering. The existence of related sibling tools and annotations strengthens the overall context, but the description alone is not fully self-sufficient.

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 for all parameters. It only implies the 'query' parameter via 'by keyword' but does not document 'page', 'per_page', or 'content_type'. The enum values for content_type are visible in the schema, but the description adds no meaning beyond that, leaving pagination semantics undocumented.

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 states a specific action ('Search Freepik stock catalog by keyword') and the resource searched. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing users to stock_get for full details and stock_download for file URLs.

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?

Provides explicit context on when to use this search tool versus the related stock_get and stock_download tools. It could be more explicit about alternative search tools, but the sibling references give clear usage direction.

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