image_keyword_overview

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or if there are rate limits or side effects. It does add behavioral context like 'Filtered to type=image' and a caution against speculation, but lacks transparency on data mutation or authenticity status. Given the absence of annotations, a 3 is appropriate for partial but insufficient disclosure.

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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'IMPORTANT' and 'PRESENTATION' sections, while lengthy, earn their place by setting behavioral constraints and presentation requirements for the agent. It could be slightly tighter, but most sentences serve a distinct purpose.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure explicitly, but the presentation requirements (summary cards, bar charts, tabbed sections) indirectly specify the intended output. The tool has 4 optional parameters and sibling tools imply complexity. The description is fairly complete for a keyword-oriented analytics tool, though lacking return field details reduces the score from 5 to 4.

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 100%, so the description does not need to detail each parameter. However, it adds value by stating that image search is lower volume and that a 90-day default is appropriate, which contextualizes the 'days' parameter meaningfully. This goes beyond schema defaults and enum descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 returns 'Top image-search keywords for the site, sorted by impressions, clicks, or position' and explicitly distinguishes it from general web search by stating 'Filtered to type=image so it returns only what surfaces in Google Images, not web search.' This verb+resource clarity and sibling differentiation is strong, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 includes important presentation and behavioral instructions but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'image_keyword_trends' or 'image_pages_overview'. It tells the agent to 'Base your analysis ONLY on the data returned' and not to speculate, but does not clarify prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or when NOT to use it. Context is implied but not systematically differentiated from siblings.

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