visual_search

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It only describes what it does without disclosing potential side effects or constraints.

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 concise with three sentences plus a list of args, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It does not mention prerequisites or edge cases, but for a search tool with a clear return type, it is reasonably 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing meaningful examples and purpose for each parameter (e.g., 'query: e.g. dark editorial masculine streetwear close-up', segment options). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool performs 'Semantic search across stored visual references' and 'Find past analyses by style, mood, segment, or free-text description', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling Pinterest tools by not being Pinterest-specific.

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 semantic visual searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pinterest_search. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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