Find similar galleries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine behavioral value on top by disclosing the fallback chain (title → artist tag → uploader) and the exact-quoted search strategy, which shapes how results degrade and what an agent can expect.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs the full strategy and fallback chain into a compact clause sequence. Every element earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 a rich output schema, fully described parameters, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance. The only minor gap is the terminal fallback case: what happens if no title, no artist tag, and no uploader remain is unspecified.

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 already documents site, gallery (gid/token), and galleryUrl, including the mutual-exclusivity constraint. The description's strategy narrative is behavioral rather than parameter-specific, so it adds no additional meaning beyond the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find galleries') plus the defining strategy ('EhViewer's strategy: extract a structural title and run an exact quoted search'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling search tools: it finds similar galleries by metadata rather than exact hash or file matches like eh_search_by_hash or eh_search_by_file.

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's strategy explanation makes the usage context clear: use this when you have a gallery and want similar results based on title, artist tag, or uploader. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., for exact duplicates), leaving some routing to inference despite a large sibling family.

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