Buscar imágenes libres

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool searches specific sources and returns insertUrl+attribution, but it does not mention whether it returns a list or single result, pagination behavior, error handling, or licensing details. This is adequate but incomplete transparency.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences deliver the core message without any filler. Every word is useful: the search sources and the return data are stated clearly in a minimal structure.

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 is complete enough for a simple tool with no annotations and no output schema, as it states purpose and return format. However, it omits that the tool can return multiple results (based on limit) and does not mention any constraints or edge cases. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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%, yet the description only partially compensates by naming the sources (Openverse/Commons). It does not explain the 'limit' or 'query' parameters, their defaults, or constraints. While parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no value for those fields, missing an opportunity to clarify expected behavior (e.g., that limit controls result count).

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 states a specific action ('Busca' / search) and a resource ('Openverse y/o Wikimedia Commons'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'format_attribution' (which likely formats attribution data). It also specifies the return value ('insertUrl + attribution'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 finding free images from Openverse/Commons, and the sibling 'format_attribution' suggests a complementary workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is clear context but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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