Search media

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: KLIPY requires CLI sign-in and degrades gracefully without it, credits are automatic via headmatter, and results must be pasted unchanged except caption text/size/x/y. Some of this restates the output schema, but the auth dependency and editing constraint are genuine behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose, then behavior, then preferences. It is dense and partially redundant (the source list re-enumerates the kind enum), but nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

Covers auth preconditions, attribution flow, output field handling, and stylistic preferences for a multi-source search tool with an output schema. Limit/pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap.

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% with enums documented for kind and set, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces consistency rules ('prefer one emoji set per deck') but adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find media for a slide') and enumerates the concrete source families it covers (Iconify, emoji, KLIPY, Imgflip, Kadal). An agent can tell exactly what this returns and how it differs from a trending/usage tool.

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 real usage guidance: prefer one emoji set per deck, prefer Kadal's own items when they fit, set credits:true in headmatter for attribution. It never names the sibling tools (media_trending, media_used) as alternatives, so the when-not branch is implied rather than explicit.

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