Search galleries

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

Beyond the read-only and open-world annotations, the description reveals meaningful behavior: sources are queried in parallel, results are interleaved so one site cannot dominate, and failed sources do not fail the whole call. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

Five short, dense sentences each add distinct information: search facets, default behavior, result fairness, failure handling, and next-step usage. No filler or restatement of the schema is present.

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?

For a read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers defaults, failure behavior, and downstream usage, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It omits details like pagination semantics and ordering, but these are minor given the schema covers page bounds and the tool is read-only.

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 schema already describes every parameter, so the description's added value is modest but real: it explains the 'all' default, the parallel querying semantics, and how to use a hit's source and path with get_gallery. This complements rather than repeats the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search galleries') and enumerates query facets (character, series, model, tag), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like browse_tag or related, but the search-across-sources framing is distinct enough.

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 gives useful context: the 'all' default, parallel source behavior, interleaved results, and how to follow up with get_gallery. It does not state when to prefer search over browse, browse_tag, or related, nor when these alternatives would be more appropriate.

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