Search Photos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it returns inline MCP image attachments, costs $0.10 per call, and requires an API key. This goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not cover limits or pagination, but the added cost/auth/return-format info is substantial.

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 concise, information-dense segments: the main behavior and a parenthetical with cost/auth. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description leaves too much unresolved for a 5-parameter, all-optional search tool: parameter meanings are absent, usage guidance is absent, and no pagination or filtering behavior is described. The cost and return-format notes help, but they do not make the definition complete enough for an agent to confidently construct a correct search call.

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 only says searchable 'by query/metadata.' It does not explain what 'to', 'from', 'place_id', or 'person_ids' mean, how they combine, or which are most useful. With zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description should carry much more semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search person photos and entity assets by query/metadata.' This is clear and distinguishes it from generic search tools like 'search' or 'search_gmail'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from photo-specific siblings like 'get_person_photos', 'get_photos_for_event', or 'get_photos_for_place', so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many photo-related alternatives. It does not mention e.g. 'use get_person_photos when you already have a person_id' or 'use get_photos_for_place for a specific place.' The only implied usage is via 'query/metadata,' which is not enough to route the agent correctly among siblings.

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