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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the searched fields and that results are returned as 'ready URLs', but says nothing about result limits, pagination, matching semantics, or authentication requirements for a read operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, ending with the return-shape note. No filler, though it is terse enough that usability details are absent rather than merely compact.

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 one-parameter search tool with a fully documented schema, this covers purpose, matching scope, and return type. Missing pagination and empty-result behavior are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the single 'query' parameter is already documented with examples. The description adds that the keyword is matched against title, file name, and album, which is genuinely beyond the schema, but it provides no syntax or multi-term semantics.

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?

Specific verb (searches) plus resource (media library images) and the fields searched (title, file name, album). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the list_images sibling by being keyword-driven, though it never names that alternative.

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 implied: search by keyword versus enumerating with list_images. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of what happens if the query matches nothing, and no guidance on choosing between this and the sibling search_components.

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