Search by local image file

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: 'The file is never uploaded' and 'calculate SHA-1 locally', which are important privacy/security traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and a concise privacy guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential behavioral context (local computation, no upload, exact match). Minor gap: it could explicitly state the result is equivalent to a hash search, but overall adequate.

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 50% (path has a description, site may lack one). The tool description echoes the schema by mentioning 'absolute local file' but does not add new meaning or clarify the 'site' parameter beyond the schema's enum/default. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 it reads a local file, calculates SHA-1, and performs an exact image search. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes it from siblings like eh_search_by_hash (which likely takes a hash) and eh_search_galleries (which uses text queries).

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 use when you have a local image file and want an exact match, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use eh_search_by_hash if you already have the hash, or eh_find_similar_galleries for similar images). No exclusion criteria or sibling references are provided.

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