image_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses return fields (titles, source URLs, thumbnails) and a provider requirement, which is useful, but omits key traits like safety defaults, rate limits, auth needs, and error behavior. Some value is added, but important behavioral context is missing.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: usage condition front-loaded, then return values, then a prerequisite. No redundancy or filler.

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 simple search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return fields, and a provider requirement, which is adequate. However, it leaves parameter semantics and behavioral details (safety, limits, defaults) unexplained, so it is only minimally complete given the rich schema and lack of structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions any of the three parameters. It does not explain the meaning or effect of 'count' or 'safesearch', and adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema definitions, falling far short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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 indicates the tool is for finding pictures and returns titles, source URLs, and thumbnails, which distinguishes it from text-oriented siblings like news_search and web_search. However, it lacks an explicit verb+resource phrase such as 'searches for images', relying on inference from 'user wants pictures'.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('Use this only when the user wants pictures') and a prerequisite ('Requires a Brave-capable provider'), effectively excluding non-picture use cases. It stops short of naming alternative tools, so it doesn't meet the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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