search_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does ('Perform a search') without disclosing behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with just two short phrases that directly state the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and the Korean translation adds value for users familiar with that language without being redundant.

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?

For a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (image URLs, metadata, thumbnails?), doesn't mention rate limits or authentication, and provides no context about the Naver Image service. The description should do more given the complexity and lack of structured information.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 action ('Perform a search') and resource ('Naver Image'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this image search tool from its many sibling search tools (like search_blog, search_news, etc.), which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 17 sibling tools including many other search types (academic, blog, news, etc.), there's no indication of when image search is appropriate versus other search tools or the datalab_* tools.

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