get_image_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the return behavior ('Detailed image information or None if not found') and documents the default behavior of include_attribution via an environment variable. This adds useful context beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits, though for a read-only 'get' operation this is likely acceptable.

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 and well-structured, using an Args/Returns format. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, includes a concrete example for the main parameter, and has no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity (two parameters, one required), the presence of an output schema, and the lack of annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core purpose, both parameters, the default behavior of the optional parameter, and the special return case (None if not found). This gives the agent enough context to use the tool correctly.

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, and it does thoroughly. Each parameter is explained with meaning: image_id gets an example ('pexels_12345') and clarification that it is provider-prefixed, while include_attribution is explained with its purpose and default behavior. This adds significant value over the bare schema definitions.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific image.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information' for 'a specific image'), which naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_stock_images and download_image. The 'specific image' phrasing indicates this is for retrieving details on an already-identified image, not for discovery or file retrieval.

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 when to use the tool by requiring an image_id and describing it as a lookup operation, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. While it's clear from the name and parameters that you need an existing image ID, there is no explicit 'use this instead of search_stock_images when you have an ID' guidance. The context is clear enough, but exclusions/alternatives are not explicitly stated.

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