search_gallery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming no destructive actions. The description adds that results include preview URLs and LemGen source links, plus free access with no API key, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose, and the second adds result details and a key feature (free, no API key). Every sentence 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?

The description covers basic purpose and output, but for a search tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, it lacks details on how sorting, filtering, and pagination work. This leaves the agent needing to infer or experiment with defaults.

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 coverage is 50%; only 3 of 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any information about how parameters (sort, limit, model, query, category, mediaType) affect behavior, leaving gaps for half the input 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 the LemGen curated AI image/video prompt library, a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_image and generate_video which create new content, and enhance_prompt which modifies prompts.

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 mentions 'Free, no API key required', indicating ease of access and no authentication barrier. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving the selection partially to inference.

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