search_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose parameter defaults and the shape of results ("title, image url, thumbnail, source, and more"), which implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about rate limits, result-count caps, ordering, or failure behavior for a network-backed search.

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 intent sentence is front-loaded, and the Args block is dense with usable detail rather than filler — each line adds constraints the schema lacks. Length is justified given 0% schema description coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns section is mildly redundant but confirms result fields. Everything needed to construct a call is present; only pagination, result ordering, and behavioral limits are absent, which are peripheral for a stateless search.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents all six parameters with defaults, the 1-100 bound on max_results, and enumerates the allowed size and color values that the schema leaves as bare strings. Only region's code format is under-explained beyond the 'us-en' example.

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 for images") and the resource noun implicitly separates it from search_web, search_books, search_videos, and search_news. It stops short of naming those siblings or search_everything, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the image-specific purpose; there is no statement of when to prefer this over search_web or search_everything, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer intent, but the definition does no routing work.

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