Image search (SearXNG)

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing the output shape and warning that returned web content is untrusted and must not be followed as instructions, which is important behavioral guidance.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states action and output, the second a concise security warning. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 image search with full schema coverage and an output schema, the definition contains everything needed to select and call the tool: purpose, result content, and safety warning. Sibling names supply the remaining differentiation context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the schema does the semantic work. The description mentions result characteristics rather than parameter syntax; it adds no extra parameter meaning, but none is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('the web for images'), and its mention of image-specific outputs (direct links, thumbnails, resolution, format) distinguishes it from the sibling search tools. Unlike a bare restatement of the title, it tells an agent what kind of results to expect.

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 a clear use case: when the task requires image URLs and metadata rather than general web results, this is the tool to invoke. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the image-scoped purpose and return values make the appropriate context obvious.

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