Search Image3 prompts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating return content ('previews, media, categories, and canonical Image3 source pages') and noting it is free. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by return content and a brief cost/safety note. Every word 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?

Despite the tool being relatively simple, the description omits all parameter semantics and provides no differentiation from siblings. With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call the tool correctly. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the remaining operational details are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does not mention 'query', 'category', 'language', 'featuredOnly', or 'limit' at all; the word 'categories' in the return could even be confused with the 'category' filter parameter. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to construct an effective search.

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 ('Search') and a specific resource ('Image3 GPT Image 2 prompt gallery'), and lists what is returned ('concise previews, media, categories, and canonical Image3 source pages'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_prompt, list_categories, and build_prompt_brief, which all have different actions.

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 implies when to use this tool — when searching the prompt gallery is needed — but it never explicitly contrasts it with sibling tools or states when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the agent must infer the boundary between searching and getting a specific prompt or listing categories.

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