view_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the returned image is a watermarked preview, not the licensed asset — but says nothing about resolution, rate limits, or whether previews are logged/attributed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose clause follows the action. Slightly informal wording ('Look at') but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core intent, but it leaves the asset_type/country interaction and the nature of the returned preview under-explained, which matters for an editorial-vs-image distinction.

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 description mentions no parameters. With 67% schema coverage the baseline is middling, and the enum parameter asset_type has no description at all in the schema, so the agent gets no help understanding when to pass 'editorial' versus 'image' or that country only matters for editorial.

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 and resource: view a watermarked preview of an image. The qualifier 'watermarked preview' implicitly separates it from get_asset (full asset) and find_similar, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 clause 'to judge whether it fits' implies the evaluation/decision use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_asset or search_images, and no statement about what to do after judging (e.g., license or fetch the full asset).

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