duckduckgo_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'normalized', lists exactly what fields are returned, mentions page-based pagination, and notes the underlying data source (DuckDuckGo's own image JSON API). It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase earns its place. The output fields and pagination are summarized without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return values, pagination, and data source. It omits details like per-page result limits and error cases, but the provided information is sufficient for most use cases.

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 already provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'q' (query string) and 'page' (page-based pagination) but does not meaningfully elaborate on 'region'. It mostly echoes the schema, so no additional semantic value beyond the baseline.

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 opens with 'Search DuckDuckGo image results' – a specific verb and resource. It then enumerates the normalized fields returned (title, source page URL, image URL, thumbnail, dimensions, hostname) and mentions pagination, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like duckduckgo_video, duckduckgo_news, and duckduckgo_search.

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 gives clear context: this is for image search on DuckDuckGo, and it even notes the pagination model. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., bing_images or brave_images) or when not to use it. The context is sufficient for basic selection but lacks explicit exclusions.

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