search_images

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with this tool effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 search tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search results look like, how pagination works beyond the parameters, what licensing 'openly-licensed' specifically means, or how mature content filtering behaves. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent lacks crucial information about the tool's behavior and results.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 11 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value. The description doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples.

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 action ('Search for') and resource ('openly-licensed images on Openverse'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'search_images_for_essay', which appears to serve a similar search function with potentially different parameters or use cases.

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 like 'search_images_for_essay' or other sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations that would help an agent choose between available options.

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