Get image by label

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens when the label does not exist (error vs null), whether labels are unique, or what the returned object contains. For an open-world lookup tool, the failure mode is the most useful missing detail.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with an inline example — nothing redundant or padded. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but every word earns its place.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema needs little prose, and the description is sufficient to invoke it. It falls short on the two things structured fields cannot convey: behavior on a missing label and how it relates to get_image.

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% and the single parameter already carries the same example string as the description. The description adds no format rules, case sensitivity, or uniqueness semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one OS image") with the lookup key ("by its public label"), plus a concrete label example. The "by label" qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from get_image and list_images, but it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over get_image (presumably ID-based) or list_images. An agent must infer from the tool name alone whether a label lookup is preferable to an ID lookup or a listing call.

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