realtime_image_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly implies a read-only search operation, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, pagination, or result structure beyond 'full image metadata'. The description could add more behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear first sentence, an operations list, and a focused usage note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format is easy to scan.

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 one-operation tool, the description is largely complete: it covers what the tool does, required parameters, and usage guidance. However, the absence of an output schema means the description could better explain the returned metadata structure and filter value constraints, leaving a minor gap.

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 input schema only defines generic 'operation' and 'args' objects. The description compensates by specifying the 'search' operation requires 'query' and mentioning available filters (size, color, type, license). This adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool performs Google Images search with filters and full metadata. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming reverse_image_search and realtime_lens_data as alternatives for searching by image.

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 'When to use' section tells exactly when to use this tool ('find images by keyword') and when not to, naming alternative tools for by-image search. This is explicit and actionable.

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