picdefense_detect_logo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses that the tool consumes credits, which is a useful behavioral trait. It does not mention error behavior, return format, or any side effects beyond credit consumption.

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 exactly two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by cost information. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter detection tool, the description covers the purpose and cost, but omits output behavior entirely—no indication of return type, success/failure conditions, or whether the result is a boolean. Given no output schema exists, this is a notable gap.

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 input schema fully describes the 'url' parameter with format and example. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies given the high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Detect' and explicitly identifies the target as 'brand logo' in an image, distinguishing it from sibling tools like face, landmark, or watermark detection. The addition of 'Consumes account credits' adds a further clarifier but doesn't detract from the primary purpose.

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?

No usage context is provided—there is no mention of when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites beyond the URL. The description only states the action and credit consumption, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.

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