image_search

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already convey the safety profile, and the description adds real context on top: a hard cap of 20 results, that the SANDBOX returns dummy data with no payment, and that returned texts are untrusted third-party content. It stops short of saying what production calls cost or how failures/payment refusals surface.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payload the agent cares about, then environment caveat, then content-safety caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the 'NOTE:' framing is slightly heavy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and the result cap, while the schema handles all three parameters and annotations cover safety. Remaining gaps (cost in production, error behavior) are minor.

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%, so keyword, language_code and location_code are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the implicit 'keyword', so the 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?

Names a specific verb+resource (Google Images results for a keyword) and enumerates the returned fields (image URL, page URL, title, alt text), which clearly separates it from text-SERP siblings like google_serp and news_search. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the 'Images' qualifier makes the distinction legible.

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 never states when to pick this over google_serp, news_search or local_market_check, nor any prerequisites beyond the sandbox note. Usage must be inferred from the phrase 'Google Images results for a keyword'.

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