Search design images

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, which already establish safety. The description adds that it performs image search across specific sites and returns certain metadata, but doesn't disclose behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or result ordering, which might be relevant for a search tool. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal new behavioral context beyond the search scope.

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, at two sentences, with the core function stated upfront and the searching tip as a secondary sentence. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool is simple with three parameters, a clear output description in the description text, and extensive annotation coverage (read-only, idempotent). The description adequately covers: what it searches, what it returns, and query guidance. However, it lacks details on result pagination or how to interpret the returned metadata, but given the simplicity and annotations, it's sufficiently complete.

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 already provides descriptive parameter documentation, with near 100% coverage (the 'sites' parameter includes enum values and explanation). The description reinforces the need for specific query terms but doesn't add much beyond the schema. For 'num' and 'sites', the schema covers their usage, so the description adds limited value here.

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 searches images across specified sites and returns URLs, dimensions, and source links. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on references or styles. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from design_search_styles, which might overlap, but the image-search focus is clear.

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?

It provides explicit advice on query phrasing: use specific UI terms over vague ones, which guides when to use this tool effectively. However, it doesn't contrast against sibling tools like design_search_styles or design_search_references, leaving it to the agent to infer which search is appropriate based on context.

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