search_gallery

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning that results include image URLs and should be rendered as markdown images, which helps the agent understand the expected interaction. No contradiction with 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?

The description is very concise at three sentences, all of which are meaningful. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and display instructions. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main functionality, when to use, how to query (including empty query behavior), and how to display results. It lacks explicit pagination details, but given the schema's parameter descriptions, it is fairly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing usage tips for the query parameter (e.g., natural language works well, leave empty to browse) and implies category usage. This exceeds the bare schema 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 clearly states the tool performs semantic search for AI image prompts, distinguishing itself from keyword searches. It also specifies that results include image URLs and how to render them, making the purpose very clear.

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 states when to use the tool: for inspiration, exploring styles, or when users say 'generate an image' without a specific idea. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context and sibling tool names allow the agent to infer when not to use it.

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