search_images_for_essay

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 'suitable for illustrating an essay,' hinting at relevance filtering, but does not detail how suitability is determined, what the output format is, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide the agent fully.

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: 'Search for images suitable for illustrating an essay.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's intent.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines. While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not address gaps in understanding how the tool behaves or what results to expect, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'essay_topic' and 'concepts' interact or what 'suitable' entails. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 suitable for illustrating an essay.' It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'images,' with the context of 'illustrating an essay' providing additional clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_images,' which might be more general, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 mentions the context of 'illustrating an essay,' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or when to choose this over sibling tools such as 'search_images' or 'get_related_images.' This lack of explicit usage instructions reduces its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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