Pipepost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'proper attribution' and 'FREE,' which are useful behavioral traits, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information: action, resource, and constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It covers the purpose and some constraints but lacks details on behavioral traits like response format, error handling, or authentication. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 schema fully documents the parameters (query, orientation, count). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage tips. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 the specific action ('Search Unsplash'), the resource ('cover images'), and a key constraint ('with proper attribution — FREE'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on Unsplash image search for cover images, unlike other tools that handle social media posting, content management, or SEO tasks.

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 context through 'cover images' and 'FREE,' suggesting it's for finding free, properly attributed cover images from Unsplash. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other image search tools not in the sibling list) or any prerequisites like needing an Unsplash API key, leaving some ambiguity.

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