get_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it states the output is base64-encoded, mentions a latency caveat for archived versions ('up to a few minutes'), and explains the default version behavior. This fully discloses behavioral traits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output, and each sentence adds unique value. Could be slightly more concise by combining the first two sentences, but no superfluous content.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers tool purpose, input semantics, latency behavior, and next steps via sibling links. It does not mention what happens if parameters are invalid or if an image doesn't exist, but the overall completeness is high for the context.

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 100% and already explains each parameter well. The description adds value by clarifying `version` accepts both version strings and archive tokens, and defaults to the database version, which goes beyond the schema description.

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 uses specific verbs ('Get an embedded image') and resource ('3GPP specification'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like `list_images` by stating its function and output format.

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 explicitly points to `list_images` for discovering available images and `list_versions` for version discovery, providing clear guidance on when to use alternative tools. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for non-image content).

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