search_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently notes the use of Open Food Facts without an API key and ERP-provided URLs, and it explains the output structure: up to N URLs with source and score. However, it leaves unclear the meaning of 'score', result ordering, and behaviors for not-found or error cases, so the disclosure is only partially complete.

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 sentences long and front-loads the primary purpose and output format. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with three well-specified parameters, the description adequately covers the input (EAN), source (Open Food Facts, ERP), limit (N), and output (URLs with source and score). It does not describe the meaning of score or fallback behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it is sufficiently complete for basic usage.

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 provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is set at 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by confirming that images are searched by EAN/GTIN and that 'N' relates to the limit parameter, but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool searches candidate product images by EAN/GTIN and returns up to N URLs with source and score. It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'fetch_product_images', which presumably performs a very similar function.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_product_images' or 'analyze_image'. The description implies usage context through mention of Open Food Facts and ERP URLs, but it does not state exclusions or name alternative tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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