query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns summaries and is read-only in nature, but it does not specify how filters combine (AND vs OR logic), performance implications, or any side effects. The description is adequate but leaves some behavioral traits implicit.

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 two sentences. The first sentence efficiently states the purpose and lists filter categories, and the second sentence explains the return format and directs to an alternative tool. No extraneous words; every sentence earns its place.

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 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return type (summaries with UUIDs) and basic usage. However, it omits details on pagination, default sorting, and the logical combination of filters (AND/OR). This is sufficient for a basic search tool but could be more complete for full clarity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description lists filter types but adds little new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It groups filters but does not clarify any of the 'ANY-match' behaviors or default interactions when multiple filters are combined.

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: 'Search the Photos library' with various filters. It lists specific filter types and explains the output (photo summaries with UUIDs). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling tool (get-photo) by directing users to use that tool for full details.

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 advises combining filters to narrow results, which implies usage context. It explicitly references 'get-photo' for full details, showing when to use this tool vs. that sibling. However, it does not mention other sibling tools like list-albums or export, nor does it provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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