ddgs_image_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns URLs and descriptions, which is useful, but it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or network behavior. For a read-only search tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 two sentences, directly front-loaded with the tool's action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 search tool, the description and schema cover the essentials: what it does and the parameters. The output schema is absent, but the description explains the return type. It could be slightly more complete by noting that it makes network calls or that results are not filtered, but it is sufficient for basic use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It simply restates the overall purpose, so no extra semantic value is added.

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 performs image search via DuckDuckGo and specifies the output (URLs and descriptions). The resource ('images') distinguishes it from sibling text and news search tools, so it meets the bar for specific verb+resource and differentiation.

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 image searches but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It would benefit from noting that this is for images only, while text and news searches are handled by sibling tools, but the context is inferable from the name and description.

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