Resolve Image Attribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds the useful context that output is 'provider-compliant' and gives an example, but it does not disclose how the optional URL is used, what happens with unsupported sources, or the exact return format beyond inference.

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 a single sentence with a helpful parenthetical example. It conveys the essential purpose without redundant words or restating the title.

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 and the description is mostly sufficient, but without an output schema it does not explicitly state the return type or the role of the optional URL parameter. The example implies a plain-text result, but agents may need more clarity on optional inputs.

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 documents all parameters (100% coverage), but the description's example 'Photo by X on Pexels' adds meaningful formatting semantics, showing how photographer and source combine into the output text.

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 specific action 'Generate' and the resource 'provider-compliant attribution text for an image', with an illustrative example. This distinguishes it from sibling search/extraction tools.

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 this tool is used after selecting an image to produce proper attribution, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The sibling tool names suggest different purposes (searching, extracting, getting best image), but no direct comparison is provided.

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