Google Image Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral signal by naming the engine modes (auto/http/proxy/browser), which implies anti-bot/rate-limit tradeoffs, and it says what is extracted. However, it omits auth needs, throttling behavior, and failure modes for a scraping operation.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the output payload is stated first and engine modes second. The trailing cross-reference is terse and partly in Indonesian ('lihat'), which is a minor readability blemish rather than bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but for a 6-parameter scraping tool with zero annotation coverage the description leaves defaults, locale/result-count semantics, and pagination behavior undocumented, and offers no usage routing.

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 schema documents nothing. The description only enumerates the engine values; gl, hl, num, page, and query are left entirely unexplained, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap beyond one parameter.

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 (Scrape), resource (Google Images, with the tbm=isch implementation detail), and the payload returned (direct image URLs, page URLs, sizes). The image-specific resource is inherently distinct from the other google_* search siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over google_web_search, google_video_search, or the other media search tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The reference to google_web_search is only for engine-mode semantics, not for tool selection.

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