image_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool searches an archive, but omits key aspects: pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's basic function.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or explicit breakdown of parameters and behavior. It is efficient but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return value format, pagination, date range semantics, or the effect of options like safe_search. The tool handles complex queries, but the description provides only a high-level overview.

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 91%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings beyond the schema. While it mentions the type of content, it does not clarify how parameters like query or date filters interact with the archive.

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 searches over 1.8 billion archived images on Arquivo.pt, specifying the types of content (historical photos, logos, graphics) and the scope (Portuguese web). This verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like search (text) or list_versions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search, list_versions). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The sole sentence implies a general use case but offers no comparative or exclusionary information.

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