search_images

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that Selenium is used (browser-based scraping, may be slow), and that each result includes source page URL, publisher domain, article title, and image dimensions. This is adequate transparency.

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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return type (URLs with full attribution). Covers source (DuckDuckGo), method (Selenium), and output details. Given tool simplicity, it is sufficiently 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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The query example is helpful but minimal. Parameters are well-documented in schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search for images on DuckDuckGo and return image URLs with full source attribution'. The verb 'search' and resource 'images' are specific, and the sibling tool 'search_maps_images' indicates a different domain (maps), so there is no ambiguity.

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?

Description highlights that the tool provides attribution info, distinguishing it from proxied redirect URLs. It implies this should be used when attribution is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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