search_stock_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns URLs and descriptions') and explains the effect of the detail parameter in concrete terms ('short=url+thumbnail, medium=adds description+credit, full=raw'). This goes beyond the generic schema description. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a simple search tool, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output + follow-up action, and detail param mapping. The description is front-loaded with the core action, and there is zero extraneous text. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 description provides enough for a search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema: what it searches, what it returns, how the detail param changes the response, and a natural next step (import_asset_from_url). The schema covers brandId and platform. It could mention pagination or licensing, but those are not essential for the tool's primary use. Overall, it is complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by translating the generic 'detail' parameter into tool-specific meanings (short=url+thumbnail, etc.), which is not present in the schema's description. This clarifies exactly what the agent can expect at each level. Other parameters are not discussed, but the schema already documents them adequately.

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+resource: 'Search stock photo/video libraries for images matching a query.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_web_images, which would target web images. It also states the output (URLs and descriptions) and a follow-up action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when searching stock photo/video libraries. It also provides a practical workflow hint ('Use import_asset_from_url to add a result to the library'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative search tools (e.g., search_web_images), which would elevate it to a 5. The context is clear but without exclusions.

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