Google Image Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: Google rate-limits this endpoint and results can come back blocked, with a documented recovery strategy. Pagination and output shape behavior are left unstated, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short, front-loaded fragments with no filler — the resource and outputs come first, caveats second. The parenthetical '(lihat google_web_search)' is a slightly awkward cross-reference but costs little space.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no prose, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs (engine modes, rate limiting, blocked-result fallback), though it leaves pagination/num semantics unclear.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only documents the `engine` parameter's accepted values (auto/http/proxy/browser); gl, hl, num and page receive no explanation at all, and the schema offers none either.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scrape Google Images (tbm=isch)') plus the concrete outputs returned: direct image URLs, page URLs, sizes. This is enough to tell it apart from google_video_search and google_web_search without opening any schema.

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?

Gives real operational guidance: engine selection (auto/http/proxy/browser) and a fallback path ('when the result is blocked, wait or switch to an RSS-based tool'). It does not, however, state when to prefer image search over a sibling like google_web_search, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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