get_tourism_images

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the return structure with all fields and image URLs, providing good transparency. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only image retrieval tool, the behavioral context is adequate.

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 well-structured with sections and an example, but is somewhat lengthy due to the return schema. It remains clear and organized, with no superfluous sentences.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description compensates fully by including a complete return schema, parameter details, and an example. It covers all necessary aspects for correct tool invocation.

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 0%, but the description provides full semantic detail for all 4 parameters: content_id source, language options with codes, page and rows with defaults and constraints. This adds essential meaning beyond the 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 it retrieves images for a specific tourism item by content ID, providing original and thumbnail URLs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_tourism_by_keyword or get_detailed_information by focusing on image retrieval.

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 explains this tool is used after obtaining a content ID from other search functions. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is clear and the usage intent is well-defined.

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