Search Google Images

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions using a connected local Chrome session and warns that verbose quality suffixes can lead to zero results. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description fills in additional dependencies and risks.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a crucial warning. Every clause earns its place—no superfluous text.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, a key parameter caveat, and the Chrome session dependency. It does not detail return values, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'quality' parameter's default and cautionary behavior, but does not clarify 'query' (though implied) or 'limit'. Partial value added.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching Google Images for poster and wallpaper candidates using a local Chrome session. It specifies the resource (Google Images with udm=2) and the verb (search), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target other platforms or actions.

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 guidance on when to use the 'quality' parameter (pass 'cinematic' or 'poster' only when a stylistic suffix is wanted) and warns about zero-results pages. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of other image search tools or provide exclusions.

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