search_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-reach are covered. The description adds nothing further: it does not mention that results are licensed stock assets, that licensing is a separate step (list_licenses/get_asset), the per-page cap, or the default safe-search behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is undersized for an 11-parameter search tool with licensing and pagination semantics. Concise is good; this is terse to the point of under-specification.

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?

With 11 parameters, an output schema, and open-world read behavior, the description should explain filtering strategy and result handling. It leaves commercial-vs-editorial licensing, pagination limits, and all enum filters to an incomplete schema.

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 only 45% across 11 parameters, so the description carries a real burden and meets none of it. Six enum/filter parameters (sort, license, image_type, orientation, people_age, safe) have no description anywhere, and the description never explains their effect or interaction.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Shutterstock photos, illustrations and vectors), and the media list implicitly separates it from siblings like search_videos and search_music. It stops short of explicitly naming the closest alternative, search_editorial, whose results also contain images.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to search_editorial, find_similar, or reverse_image_search. An agent must infer the choice purely from sibling names.

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