Search Unsplash+

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of returning only Unsplash+ marked results, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention pagination, sorting behavior, authentication requirements, or any edge case handling. The stated constraint adds some transparency but not a rich behavioral picture.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and filtering rule. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool, though it omits details that other dimensions penalize.

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?

The description covers the core function and key constraint, but for a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter coverage, it lacks essential context for an agent: no mention of authentication needs (sibling login tools suggest it may be required), no information about result format, and no usage guidance. It's minimally acceptable but with clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description mentions none of the four parameters. The schema offers only types and enums, not human-readable explanations. For a search tool with query, sort, limit, and orientation, the description should have compensated but does so not at all, leaving the agent to infer semantics from names.

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 action ('Search') and the specific resource ('the Unsplash website') plus the filtering behavior ('only results explicitly marked as Unsplash+'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get or download, and gives a precise purpose.

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 tells what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like authentication. For a search tool among login/status/get/download siblings, it's missing context on when this is the right choice.

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