imagepeek: read an image's metadata (EXIF, GPS, XMP, IPTC)

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

With annotations already covering the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description still adds substantial operational context: pixels are never decoded, strings are capped at 300 chars, malformed EXIF yields a `warnings` entry rather than failure, refused inputs are not charged, images are never logged or stored, typical latency, price and free quota. This is well beyond what the annotations 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?

The definition is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and the sibling routing before limits and pricing. It is longer than typical but nearly every clause carries actionable information; only the redundant 'imagepeek:' branding is disposable.

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 two-input read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: supported formats, size/format refusal conditions, error tolerance, cost and quota, privacy behavior, and a prompt-injection caution about returned strings. No material gap remains.

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% — both `url` and `image_base64` are fully documented in the schema, including the 10 MB cap and refused host types. The description adds only indirect constraint context (supported formats, megapixel refusal) rather than syntax or format meaning for the parameters themselves, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read an image's EXIF, GPS, XMP, IPTC and ICC metadata') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling image_strip_metadata, which does the opposite operation. An agent can select it without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative operation (image_strip_metadata for removal) and gives the operative constraints — supported formats, the 40-megapixel refusal, and the free-tier limit — which tell the agent when the call will succeed. It does not, however, contrast itself with adjacent read tools like get_page_meta or image_hash, so some routing is left to inference.

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