search_woopicx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool searches free graphics and returns asset titles and URLs, which is helpful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 long, directly states the purpose and return value, and includes a compact list of asset categories. Every element earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple search tool with a fully described input schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies what is searched, the categories, and the return format. Minor gaps remain around result ordering, pagination limits beyond the limit parameter, and error behavior, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (query, limit, collection), including defaults and enum values for collection. The description adds only example search categories via the prose listing, but does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('free graphics on Woopicx'), and lists concrete categories (3D icons, mockups, stock photos, etc.). It also notes what is returned (asset titles and woopicx.com URLs), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for searching free graphics on Woopicx and provides category examples, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Since no sibling tools are listed, the guidance is only implicit.

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