commons_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a useful behavioral trait: each record carries the licence read from the file metadata, and maps are matched by the word 'map' in the title. It says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, pagination, or result ordering, which leaves real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence followed by a structured Args block, and there is little waste. The terse arg strings are slightly cryptic (e.g. bare value lists) but the structure is efficient.

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 simple search tool with an output schema already covering return shape, the description is nearly complete: purpose, all four params and their value domains are covered. The missing pieces are usage routing versus siblings and behavioral constraints like pagination, which matter less because an output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all four parameters, gives the limit range (1 to 50), enumerates the filetype values, enumerates the kind values, and notes the map-matching quirk. This is strong compensation, though it omits defaults and the interaction between filetype and kind.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search Wikimedia Commons files'), which an agent can distinguish from dpla_search, ia_search, nara_search and si_search on the resource alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the Commons siblings (commons_file_info, commons_category_members), so it stops 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent gets no signal on when to prefer commons_search over commons_category_members or the other repository search tools; usage is only weakly implied by the tool name.

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