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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation (listing) and notes that URLs are permanent, but it does not mention potential side effects, pagination, or error behavior. It is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality and optional filters without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description adequately covers the purpose, the nature of the output (permanent URLs), and the available filters. For a simple list operation, it is reasonably complete, though it omits details like sorting order or pagination. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the mention of URLs.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (album and format), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('listet'), the resource ('Bilder der Medienbibliothek von Systra Tools'), and the key value proposition ('mit fertigen, dauerhaft gültigen URLs zum direkten Einsetzen'). This distinguishes it from other listing tools that handle different entities.

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 mentions optional filtering by album and format, giving some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'search_images' tool or explain when to prefer listing over searching. No alternative tool is referenced.

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