search_images

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains defaults for every parameter, conditional output presence (e.g., download_results only when download=True), and the exact structure of all return fields. It also discloses concurrency settings and output directory behavior. This is exceptionally transparent.

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?

Although long, the description is well-organized into clear sections (basic search, filters, download, analysis, return format). Each section is directly relevant to the parameters it explains, and no content is redundant with the schema. The front-loaded summary line gives immediate context. It is as concise as possible given the tool's complexity.

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 is exceptionally complete for a tool with 15 parameters and no annotations. It includes the return format with a detailed example, parameter explanations, defaults, conditional behavior, and even the concurrency model. Nothing about the tool's behavior is left ambiguous, making it fully self-contained for an AI agent.

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%, yet the description provides semantic meaning for all 15 parameters. It explains the format for region codes, safesearch values, time limits, size/type/layout options, color examples, and the meaning of download/analyze flags. It also clarifies default values and the count semantics. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with '搜索图片（支持下载和分析）' which clearly states the verb (search) and resource (images), and explicitly notes additional capabilities (download and analysis). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_videos, search_text, and search_books, which are for other media types.

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 clearly implies its usage for image search with a comprehensive list of filters, download, and analysis options. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives or state when-not-to-use, which would merit a 5. The context is sufficiently clear from the tool name and sibling list.

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