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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: AND semantics for tags, newest-first ordering, a 200 result cap, and shop-time-zone date interpretation. It omits whether empty tags return everything, pagination/cursor behavior, and permission requirements, leaving notable gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the core purpose front-loaded and supporting constraints following. No redundant or filler content.

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 7-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: matching logic, ordering, result cap, and timezone. It could be more complete about return shape or empty-tag behavior, but it gives an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that tags combine with AND logic (not evident from the schema), that dates use the shop time zone, and that limit caps at 200. Only shop_id (required) and the precise from/to boundary semantics are left unaddressed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find photos') and states the core semantic that distinguishes it from data listing: results must carry all given tags. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like media_list or media_get, so sibling differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 phrase 'Narrow by job, stage, or upload dates' implies the intended filtering use case, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over media_list or jobs_findByTag, nor any stated prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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