image_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds clarity on scope (Docker Hub only) and return format, but lacks details on pagination, sorting, or rate limits, which are acceptable for a search tool.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, includes parameter documentation, return info, and an alternative tool reference in a few concise sentences with no waste.

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 purpose, scope, parameters, return format, and alternatives. It lacks mention of pagination or ordering, but given the low complexity and absence of output schema, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully explains both parameters: 'term' with examples and 'limit' with default behavior. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, which only provides types and default.

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 it searches Docker Hub for public images, specifies the resource and action, and distinguishes from sibling tools like registry_tags by explicitly limiting scope to Docker Hub.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (searching Docker Hub for public images) and when not to use it (for other registries or listing tags on specific images), providing a direct alternative: registry_tags.

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