search_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return fields, which gives insight into the output. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior for empty results. For a read-only search tool, safety is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary fluff. It effectively communicates the action and expected output in a compact format, earning its place.

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 is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and the return fields, which is essential since no output schema exists. It lacks some guidance on limits or error behavior, but for a basic search tool, it is largely 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: 'query' is described similarly, and 'limit' is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action: 'Search Docker Hub images by keyword.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_image_stats and batch_image_stats, which focus on statistics rather than search. The list of return fields (name, namespace, etc.) further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 keyword-based searches but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. For instance, it does not say 'use get_image_stats for statistics rather than search.' The context is clear enough to infer, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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