search_stock_photos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds useful context about free commercial use and provider enablement via env vars, but it does not disclose behavior like what happens if no API keys are set, how results are aggregated across providers, or any rate limits. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds licensing and setup notes. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain return values or error behavior. It does not mention what the search returns (e.g., photo URLs, metadata) or how missing API keys are handled. Given the multi-provider complexity, this is a notable gap, though the core purpose and provider setup are covered.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions (query, color, limit, license), so the description itself does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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: 'Search for free stock photos from Pexels, Unsplash, and Pixabay.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and specifies the resource type (stock photos) along with named providers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_icons or search_vectors.

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 when to use this tool (when searching for stock photos) through its clear purpose, and it provides setup context by mentioning required environment variables for each provider. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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