search_wol_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches WOL, scans matching articles (bounded by article_limit), and returns images with captions and exact links. It doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, but these are often not required. The behavior is adequately transparent.

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 sentences with a front-loaded purpose statement. Every word earns its place; no repetition or fluff. Efficiently communicates the tool's function and output.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality well. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the format parameter or explicitly bounding limits, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning 'bounded image results' and 'captions and exact links', which clarify return format not in schema. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of bounded (i.e., image_limit and article_limit).

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 'Find' and identifies the resource as 'WOL publication images', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_wol_library (text search) and get_article_media (media for a specific article).

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 phrase 'by topic' indicates when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance. A direct mention of alternatives like 'Use search_wol_library for text searches' would elevate this.

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