Search container images

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the search semantics (substring, case-insensitive), the data source (public home-ops clusters), and the exact return contents (repositories, tags, deployment counts, sample repos). This goes beyond the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding.

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?

Two focused sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core action and scope, the second describes return values and equivalence. Every clause earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return types. It covers the essential context: what the tool does, what data it searches, matching behavior, and result granularity. With annotations handling safety and schema handling parameters, the description is complete for this tool's 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% with clear parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the query parameter's matching semantics ('substring match, case-insensitive') and what the results represent (tag counts, deployment usage, sample repos), which complements the schema without redundancy.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('container image repositories'), and adds key semantics like substring match and case-insensitivity. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (search_releases, grep_values) by focusing on image repositories, and even references the equivalent kubesearch.dev /image search.

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 clearly states the context (searching image repos across public home-ops clusters) and the matching behavior. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references, though sibling names make the distinction obvious. This is close to a 5 but missing an explicit exclusion.

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