google_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns thumbnails and source URLs but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or any limitations (e.g., no adult content filtering, no API quotas). This lack of context reduces transparency.

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, with a main purpose sentence followed by output characteristics and sample prompts. The sample prompts, while helpful, slightly lengthen the description. The essential information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return format (thumbnails and source URLs). It does not cover error handling or edge cases (e.g., no results), but for a straightforward search tool, it is mostly 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 has 0% coverage, meaning the description must explain parameters. The description includes an 'Args' section that clearly defines query as 'The image search query string' and num_results as 'Number of image results to return (default 5, max 10).' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and title.

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 'Search Google Images and return images inline in chat.' It specifies a specific verb (search) and resource (Google Images), and the sample prompts reinforce this. It distinguishes itself from siblings like google_search (web results) and google_lens (image recognition).

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 provides sample prompts that imply when to use (e.g., 'Show me images of...'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. The context signals include many sibling tools, but no guidance is given to differentiate them.

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