Find UI/UX Inspiration

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the core behavior: searching via Google Images, returning image URLs, and page/gallery info. It does not mention limitations like reliance on external APIs, but it is transparent about the mechanism and output.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the function and resource, the second covers output and use case. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, mechanism, return values, and usage context. Since there is no output schema, it does well to state what it returns. It could add limitations or error behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for a search tool with a well-defined schema.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters, the description adds value by enumerating specific gallery names (e.g., Mobbin, Awwwards) that map to the `sources` parameter and explains the overall search mechanism ('via Google Images'), enriching the semantics of query, gl, hl, and num.

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 live design galleries via Google Images') and specific resources (Mobbin, Godly, Awwwards, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like kroma_scrape_site_design or kroma_search_design_web.

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?

It provides clear context with 'Great for mood-boarding a screen, flow, or aesthetic,' indicating when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies a visual inspiration use case, distinguishing it from code/effects tools.

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