Search by image SHA-1

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the key behavioral detail 'without uploading the image', which differentiates it from similar tools. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence of 14 words. It contains no filler, every word contributes to the purpose, and the most important information appears first.

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 the tool has 2 parameters (one required), an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete for an agent to understand core usage. It could briefly mention the site parameter or expected output, but the presence of the output schema mitigates the need for return value details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It explains the sha1 parameter (exact 40-character hash) but omits any mention of the site parameter (enum, optional). This leaves a semantic gap for a critical aspect of the tool's behavior.

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 action (Search), the resource (E-Hentai), the method (exact SHA-1 hash), and adds a distinguishing detail (without uploading). It effectively communicates the tool's unique functionality among siblings.

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 by stating the input requirement (40-character SHA-1 hash), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like eh_search_by_file or specify when not to use the tool. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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