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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the scope (Docker Hub only) and the return fields (`name`, `description`, `star_count`, `is_official`, `is_automated`). This is valuable but lacks information on rate limits or pagination.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by usage guidance, parameter descriptions, and return format. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the scope, usage, parameter behavior, and return format. No gaps remain.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully. It explains `term` as a search keyword with examples ('nginx', 'python') and `limit` as the maximum number of results with a note on Docker Hub's default. This adds complete meaning beyond the 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 it searches Docker Hub for public images matching a term. It distinguishes from sibling tool `registry_tags` by specifying the scope and usage. The verb 'search' and resource 'Docker Hub public images' are specific and unambiguous.

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) and when not (use `registry_tags` for listing tags on a specific image from any OCI registry). It also clarifies that it does not cover GHCR, ECR, etc., providing clear context.

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