serp_google_images

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'returns structured image results,' which is a basic outcome but does not mention pagination behavior, credit implications, or any quirks such as rate limits or result metadata format. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It is efficient and has no redundant filler. However, it is somewhat tautological ('Search Google Images and get image results' restates the tool name), but for conciseness this is well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is incomplete for a tool with six parameters and no annotations. It lacks guidance on typical use cases, interaction with filters, pagination, or credit costs (though schema mentions credits). The description is too sparse to provide the agent with a complete behavioral picture.

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 100%, meaning all six parameters are already documented with meanings (e.g., 'country' for localized results, 'image_size' for filtering). The description itself adds no parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema does the heavy lifting, and no additional value is contributed by the prose description.

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 'Search Google Images and get image results' and 'Performs a Google Image search and returns structured image results.' This clearly identifies the tool's function (searching images) and differentiates it from sibling tools like serp_google_search (web search) and serp_google_news. It could be more explicit about the 'image-specific' nature, but the resource and verb are clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for image results specifically, nor does it reference sibling tools or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and generic description, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this over other search tools.

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