Illustration search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: free-form query tags/count/orientation are parsed, size controls preview versus full-size file, and negative tags are sent to the board as “-tag”.

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 front-loaded with its purpose and then uses a compact Args structure. Every line adds parameter meaning or behavioral context without repetition or wasted prose.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is sufficient for invocation, though it could add minor context about the source/board or empty-result behavior.

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 carries the full burden. It documents all six parameters with meaningful semantics: query examples and parsing behavior, count range 1–10, size meanings, orientation values, extra canonical booru tags, and negative exclusion syntax.

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?

States a specific verb (“Search”) and resource (“illustration”) and notes support for Chinese or English free-form requests. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though none of the listed siblings appear to be illustration-search 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 use case is implied through the Chinese/English request example and the parameter explanations. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which sibling to use instead, so the guidance is adequate but not complete.

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