vk_get_backgrou_abf04358d617

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: the endpoint is a GET (implying read-only), 'does not usually require a request body', 'Authentication is required', and parameter aliases (camelCase/snake_case) are accepted. This is substantial transparency, though it stops short of describing response structure or error handling.

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 somewhat repetitive: 'Search for a background from unsplash' and 'Search for a project background from unsplash' convey nearly the same meaning. While the remaining details are concise and structured, the redundancy wastes a sentence and reduces overall efficiency.

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?

With only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers important aspects like authentication, request body expectations, and parameter handling. However, it does not describe the response format or pagination semantics beyond the schema's page parameter, and it fails to differentiate from sibling tools. It is adequate for a simple proxy tool but not fully complete.

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% with clear descriptions for 'p' (page number) and 's' (search term), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful invocation semantics: 'Path and query parameters are top-level fields' and 'Original parameter names also accept camelCase and snake_case aliases'. This goes beyond the schema to explain parameter naming flexibility.

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 function: 'Search for a background from unsplash' and specifies the exact endpoint (GET /backgrounds/unsplash/search). It is a specific verb+resource pairing, but it does not distinguish this tool from similarly named sibling background tools (e.g., vk_get_backgrou_9a4b6fd79afd), so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially given multiple similar sibling tools. It provides some context about authentication and request body, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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