search_gallery

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. The description adds context about result contents (prompt summaries, image URLs) and recommends rendering Markdown images, giving the agent actionable behavioral expectations without contradicting the read-only hint.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adding output and rendering guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear overview of purpose and result format. It doesn't cover pagination, sorting, or parameter interactions, but the core use case is adequately addressed.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all 9 parameters, so the description need not elaborate on them. It provides no additional parameter-specific detail, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 specifies the verb 'Search', the resource 'UGCmind prompt library', and the purpose 'visual inspiration', making it clear and distinct from sibling tools. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it misses the top score, but is still strong.

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 implies usage for visual inspiration, but offers no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It doesn't compare to siblings like get_inspiration or search_project_assets, nor mention when not to use this tool.

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