giphy_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond them—nothing about rate limits, API-key requirements, or result paging. With annotations carrying the load, silence earns a low score rather than a contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though terse to the point of under-specification, which is penalized elsewhere rather than here.

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 four-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is barely sufficient. It omits the one thing structured fields cannot convey: how this search tool relates to giphy_trending and giphy_random.

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 100%, with limit, query, rating, and api_key all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Giphy ... GIFs'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling giphy_trending or giphy_random tools, which are the closest alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this over giphy_trending (browse popular) or giphy_random (get a random GIF). The word 'Search' implies a query is required, but that inference comes from the tool name and schema, not the description.

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