image_search

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint=true` and `destructiveHint=false`, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful context about public-image scope and the deprecated `is_automated` field, but it does not discuss auth requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral details. Given the annotations cover the safety profile well, this is adequate but not outstanding.

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 opening line states the core purpose, the second scopes it, and the following sections briefly cover alternatives, parameters, and return format. No sentence is wasted, and the most important disambiguation appears early.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It names the registry scope, explains the alternative tool, documents both parameters, and describes the returned fields including the misleading `is_automated` behavior.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden. It explains `term` with examples and gives `limit` a concrete meaning plus the Docker Hub default of 25, adding 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 starts with a specific action and resource: 'Search Docker Hub for public images matching a term.' It also clearly differentiates from the sibling `registry_tags` by restricting scope to Docker Hub image search, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says 'Searches Docker Hub only - not GHCR, ECR, or other registries' and directs agents to `registry_tags` for listing tags on a specific image from any OCI registry. This gives both positive and negative usage guidance with a named alternative.

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