Find openly-licensed images

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds an important behavioral detail not present in the annotations: every result carries a ready-to-paste attribution. This helps the agent know the output format and fit for attribution-related workflows beyond what the structured annotations disclose.

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 a single sentence that states the core functionality and a key output characteristic without repetition or fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes useful source context in parentheses...

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 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden and leaves too many open questions. It does cover the basic licensing and attribution aspects but not the meaning/ge of the optional parameters, expected return shape, or any pagination/limit behavior. This is barely adequate guidance for a low-stakes read-only tool but well short of what is needed for nuanced parameterized searches.

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?

None of the seven parameters are documented, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only hints at 'query' via 'Search' and at the 'license' field via 'CC-licensed', while the many other parameters (size, count, intent, extension, aspect_ratio) receive no explanation. Care must be given to the defaults and beyond, without which the agent can only guess at intent.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('CC-licensed images'), and adds source examples (Flickr, Wikimedia, museums) plus an output feature (ready-to-paste attribution). This lets an agent distinguish the tool from siblings like find_audio and image_roulette without needing to open the schema.

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 implies the tool is appropriate when looking for openly-licensed images with usable attribution, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as image_roulette or find_audio. There is no mention of exclusions, edge cases, or situations where another tool would be preferable, so the guidance remains implicit rather than actionable.

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