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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns media URLs and metadata, and supports pagination, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed pagination behavior. With annotations present, the description provides adequate but not rich context.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then lists features. Every part adds value; there is no redundancy. Ideal conciseness for the amount of information conveyed.

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 9 parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main return type (media URLs and metadata) and explains key parameters. It could mention that only q is required, but is otherwise complete for a high-level 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 coverage is only 11% (description for contentfilter). The description adds meaning for q (keyword), locale, contentfilter, ar_range, random, and pagination (pos/limit), mapping to several parameters. It compensates for low schema coverage by explaining the purpose of most parameters, though client_key and media_filter are not explicitly mentioned.

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 the tool searches Tenor's GIF and sticker library by keyword, and lists supported features. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'trending_terms' or 'search_suggestions' by specifying the media type and library.

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?

The description implies usage for searching GIFs/stickers but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling tools. Usage is inferred but not prescribed.

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