search_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'JSON string containing image search results with URLs', which adds some context about the output format. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence serves a specific function without redundancy. However, the 'Returns' section could be slightly more concise by integrating with the purpose statement.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well and mentions the output format, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and differentiation from siblings. The output schema existence reduces the need to fully explain return values, but more context is needed for effective agent use.

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. It provides clear semantics for all 4 parameters: 'query' as a search string, 'limit' as maximum results with default, and 'from_year'/'to_year' as optional year filters. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types, though it could elaborate on query syntax or year format constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for images in the National Library's digital collection.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('images'), and context ('National Library's digital collection'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_texts', which searches texts rather than images, though this distinction is somewhat implied by the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_texts' for text searches or other tools for different types of queries. There's no context on prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases beyond the basic function.

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