Search explore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms 'Read-only' without contradicting them. It adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a city only appears once it holds at least 5 assets, so small libraries can return an empty result — a caveat an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of describing cost, latency, or ordering of the fields array.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the usage cue, then the threshold caveat — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The closing 'Returns:' paragraph duplicates information that the output schema already provides, which is the one part that does not fully earn its space.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with both annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and the empty-result edge case. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether to call it is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a single unfiltered call with no arguments.

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: an overview of library contents grouped by explore field, one representative asset per city and per detected concept. The parenthetical reference to Immich's Explore page anchors the concept, and the phrase 'what is in here?' makes it distinguishable from the search_* siblings that target specific queries.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case as orientation in an unknown library before searching for anything specific, which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not name the alternative tools (search_cities, search_smart, search_metadata) that an agent would move to next, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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