searxng_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 that the tool 'Returns image results with URLs and thumbnails,' which adds some context about output format. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or other behavioral traits. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It consists of two concise sentences that earn their place by stating the action and output. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and output format but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and parameter nuances. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it provides a basic overview.

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 (query, engines, language, pageno). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 using SearXNG' specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (searxng_news, searxng_search) by focusing on images, though it doesn't explicitly mention the distinction. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 when to choose this over searxng_search or searxng_news, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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