Find Images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses credential requirements per provider, a licensing caveat ("Verify source licenses before use"), and a semantic warning that picsum results are not subject-matched. It omits return payload shape and any rate-limit or failure behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences: the action first, the provider routing second, the licensing caveat last. No filler and nothing buried past the opening clause.

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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers provider selection and the main correctness hazard (license/picsum mismatch). The one real gap is that it never indicates what a result contains (image URL, attribution, dimensions), which matters since no output schema exists.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each provider enum value implies (keyless vs keyed, commercially usable vs placeholder) and by flagging the license check. It does not restate width/height or limit, which the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search for images by query") and immediately enumerates the four providers, which distinguishes it from find_icons and find_design_assets. It never explicitly names those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete selection criteria between providers: openverse is the keyless default with commercially usable CC/PD results, pexels/unsplash require named env keys, and picsum is called out as random placeholders that are not subject-matched. It does not say when to prefer this over find_icons or find_design_assets.

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