image_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the registry scope (Docker Hub only), the return format (list of dicts with specific keys), and the default limit behavior. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then exclusions/alternatives, then parameter details, then return type. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, scope, alternative, parameter semantics, and return shape. There are no gaps that would confuse an agent.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully documents both parameters: `term` is explained with examples, and `limit` is explained with its Docker Hub default of 25. This adds meaning that the schema lacks, making it easy for an agent to know exactly what to provide.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Search Docker Hub for public images matching a term.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly excluding other registries and referencing `registry_tags` as the alternative for listing tags from any OCI registry.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Searches Docker Hub only — not GHCR, ECR, or other registries. For listing tags on a specific image from any OCI registry use `registry_tags` instead.' This clearly directs the agent to the proper alternative.

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