search_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 reveals key traits: AI-powered semantic search based on visual content rather than filenames/tags, and details the return structure including success, query, count, and results. No contradictions exist.

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 well-organized with a clear overview, Args section with bullet points, and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 search tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the search semantics, every parameter with examples, and the return value structure, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 schema provides zero description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly, including examples for query ('person in a room'), defaults for limit, date format expectations, and a folder_pattern example. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Search images using natural language queries with optional filters' and further explains it performs semantic search across the photo archive. This specific verb+resource formulation distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_image_info and reindex_archive, which address different operations.

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 conveys a clear use case: finding images by visual content using natural language. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the given siblings.

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