Find similar galleries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about the search algorithm: extracting a structural title, running an exact quoted search, and falling back to artist tag then uploader. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication.

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, well-structured sentence. It is front-loaded with the main action and then provides concise detail on the strategy. Every part contributes meaning without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

While an output schema exists and the search strategy is described, the description fails to clarify which inputs are required (e.g., the gallery object or galleryUrl) and how they are used. It is not immediately obvious that the tool needs a reference gallery. This is a notable gap for a tool with nested objects and zero schema coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not. The description never mentions the 'site', 'gallery', or 'galleryUrl' parameters, nor explains how they influence the search. It references 'artist tag' and 'uploader' but these are not parameters. The tool's inputs remain unclear from the description alone.

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's purpose: 'Find galleries using EhViewer's strategy'. It specifies the resource (galleries) and a distinctive approach that distinguishes it from sibling search tools like eh_search_galleries or eh_get_popular. The mention of a structural title search and fallback strategy makes the specific functionality unambiguous.

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 gives clear context about when to use this tool: when you want to find similar galleries following EhViewer's exact matching strategy. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the strategy itself implies a specialized use case compared to other search tools. It lacks explicit exclusions, so not a perfect 5.

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