XMLStock: images

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: calls are paid ('ПЛАТНО за запрос') and the `truncated: true` field indicates when results end earlier than the requested depth. It does not contradict the `readOnlyHint:false` annotation because the paid nature of the call can be considered a consequential side effect even though the operation searches.

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 two compact sentences: the first states the purpose and cost, the second describes the return shape and truncation flag. Every clause earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly documents the return fields and truncation behavior. The schema covers defaults, enums, and cost implications per page. The definition is slightly incomplete around authentication prerequisites and error behavior, but the account parameter hints at *_auth_status, so the gap is minor.

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 already documents most parameters well, with 71% coverage including depth, region, safeSearch, searchDomain, and account. The free-text description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, and parameters like query and device remain only implicitly understood.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Поиск по картинкам Google через XMLStock' (Google image search via XMLStock). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like xmlstock_news, xmlstock_video, and xmlstock_serp without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 its use case through the phrase 'поиск по картинкам' but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. The paid-per-request warning is useful context, but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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