Search Wikimedia images

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that the tool returns candidates with title, license, author, pixel dimensions, and downloadable URL. It sets selection criteria (>=1000px, old photos) and instructs the agent to be autonomous and always credit sources. This provides a complete behavioral profile for the agent.

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 well-structured, starting with the main purpose, followed by usage tips, return format, selection criteria, and autonomy instructions. Each sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose. The information is front-loaded and logically ordered.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately describes return values (title, license, author, dimensions, URL). It also provides selection criteria and attribution instructions. However, it does not address edge cases like no results or pagination. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an image search tool.

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 description adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by emphasizing English keywords and providing examples. However, the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and the schema provides only constraints (default, min, max) without context. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but misses an opportunity to explain how 'limit' affects results.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find freely-licensed (Public Domain / CC) images on Wikimedia Commons for a topic.' It specifies the exact resource (Wikimedia Commons), license type, and action (find/search). It differentiates from siblings like 'preview_images' and 'add_images' by focusing on search and retrieval of candidates.

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 provides detailed usage guidance: search with English keywords, prefer images >= 1000px, prefer old public-domain photos for documentary feel, and always keep license/author for credits. It also instructs autonomy ('do NOT stop to ask the user') and mentions a sibling tool (list_templates) as the only exception. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives.

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