get_attribution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Return' indicates a read-only operation, and 'previously-returned image' hints at a prerequisite. It could be more explicit about error handling or that it does not mutate anything, but the core behavior is clear.

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, tightly-worded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without padding. Every word earns 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description gives the essential purpose but omits key context like required parameter semantics and potential error conditions. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description alone is a bit thin for a tool that depends on prior calls.

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 must compensate. It only says 'previously-returned image' without linking that to the 'provider' or 'image_id' parameters. It doesn't explain what values provider accepts or where image_id comes from, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('formatted credit/attribution text') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling search/download tools. It immediately clarifies the tool's unique role in the workflow.

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 phrase 'previously-returned image' clearly implies this tool is used after a search call, providing helpful context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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