search_media

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

Annotations give openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds little beyond hinting that results carry source pages and license notices. Critically, it never explains that network access is disabled by default (allow_network=false), so an agent cannot predict what happens on a default call. The "find" framing also sits awkwardly against readOnlyHint=false without clarification.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, but this is under-specification rather than concision — it omits nearly everything an agent needs. Length is fine; content density is not.

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 return-shape explanation is not required. However, for a 4-parameter, open-world search tool with 0% schema coverage and a default-off network flag, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a correct call or anticipate failure modes.

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% across four parameters, and the description compensates for none of them: query semantics, the mixed/image/video kind enum, the providers allowlist, and the allow_network flag are all undocumented. The most consequential parameter, allow_network (default false), is invisible in the description.

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?

"Find licensed candidates" gives a verb but the resource is only inferable from the tool name; the description never says it searches images/videos across providers, nor that it returns license-annotated results. It is distinguishable from write-side siblings like import_media or generate_video, but only by implication.

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 only workflow guidance is "consult source pages and notices before selecting them," which points vaguely at select_scene_asset without naming it. There is no statement of when to use this versus import_media, and no mention that allow_network defaults to false, which materially changes when the tool is usable.

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