Google Search 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 only states 'Search Google Images' without revealing whether the operation is read-only, synchronous or asynchronous (despite the execution_mode parameter), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 parameters.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but not under-specified to the point of being unhelpful, unlike a pure tautology. The reference to the endpoint is mild filler but not harmful.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and an output schema, the description provides almost no contextual information about how the tool behaves, what the parameters influence, or the nature of the results. It does not explain the distinction between sync/async modes, pagination, or how 'uule' and 'region' affect searches. This is notably incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 all parameters already have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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 function ('Search Google Images') and names the specific endpoint, which makes the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'google_search' or mention what makes it unique (e.g., image-specific results).

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 over alternatives like 'google_search' or 'google_maps_search'. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to rely solely on the tool name and sibling context.

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