search_gallery

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: results are clamped to 3 per call, an optional API key switches billing to an account-level daily quota instead of a shared per-IP budget, responses carry one bounded MCP image preview plus resource-link and text-URL fallbacks, and gallery text is flagged as untrusted prompt-injection surface. None of this is derivable from the schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then dense operational details (clamping, auth/quota, preview format, safety). Every sentence carries information, though the block is long for a single paragraph and could be split for faster scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the return shape (at most 3 entries, previews, resource links, text URLs) and the auth/quota side effects. An agent has everything needed to call and present results correctly.

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 already 100%, so the schema baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter behavior — that 'limit' values above 3 are accepted and clamped rather than rejected, and that an empty query falls back to category browsing/random picks — which clarifies how limit and query actually behave at runtime.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search AI image prompts') and sharpens the scope with 'semantic understanding — finds visually and conceptually similar results, not just keyword matches.' It does not name or differentiate itself from the closest sibling, get_inspiration, so it falls short of 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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: 'Use when users need inspiration, want to explore styles, or say "generate an image" without a specific idea.' However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to an alternative such as get_inspiration, which appears to overlap heavily.

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