picdefense_check_image_risk

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Consumes account credits,' which is important side-effect information. It also clarifies the nature of the output (reverse-image-search findings and risk score). There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and expected output. The second sentence adds positioning and cost without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, return value, primary use case, and cost implication. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

The schema already provides full coverage for the single 'url' parameter, including format and an example. The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond calling it an 'image URL,' so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Run' and clearly identifies the resource ('image URL'). It states the return value ('reverse-image-search findings and a "picrisk" score') and positions the tool as the 'primary tool' for assessing image misuse/scraping, which distinguishes it from sibling image-analysis tools like detect_face or extract_exif.

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 explains when to use this tool: 'This is the primary tool for assessing whether an image has been misused or scraped.' It also adds a practical consideration ('Consumes account credits'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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