Query Google Images performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: nothing about row-limit ceilings, paging, data freshness, or how filters compose. It is essentially a purpose statement, not a behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded ahead of the metric and dimension lists. No filler sentences, though the list-heavy construction is slightly run-on and the absence of a leading verb makes it read as a label rather than an instruction.

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 the input schema carries all parameter semantics. What is missing is the routing layer: with eight sibling analytics tools, the description never states when image analytics is the right pick. For a nine-parameter tool it is minimal but not incomplete on the mechanics.

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 nine parameters thoroughly (site_url resolution, date defaults, data_state semantics, dimension rules). The description echoes the usable dimensions, which adds marginal confirmation but no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (Google Images and the Images tab of Search) and enumerates the metrics returned (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position) broken down by query, page, country, device or date. That is enough to separate it from query_search_analytics or query_video_analytics on the basis of scope, even though no sibling is named explicitly and the sentence lacks a leading verb.

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?

Usage is only implied: the resource restriction to Google Images tells the agent when this tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' statement, no prerequisites, and no exclusions against the sibling analytics tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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