search_images

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the output fields (title, URL, thumbnail, source) but omits details about pagination, rate limits, error handling, or ordering of results. This adds some transparency but is not comprehensive.

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, front-loading the main action and return types. Every word is purposeful, with no extraneous information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description states the essential purpose and output fields, but lacks context about result formatting (e.g., list vs. object), pagination, or parameter usage. With no annotations or output schema, the agent is left partially informed about how to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain the query or max_results parameters beyond implying query is the search term; max_results is entirely unexplained. This leaves a significant gap for effective invocation.

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 images via SearXNG and enumerates the return fields (title, URL, thumbnail, source), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_web and search_news. The verb 'search' and resource 'images' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies usage for image searches based on the name and resource, but it does not contrast with search_web or search_news, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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