search_images

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions one side effect (media_type=videos can return original video files) but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, caching, safety filtering, or what happens to downloaded files. For a 14-parameter search tool that can write to an output directory, this leaves major behavior undisclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the creator-query routing rule is front-loaded after the core capability. It is compact and readable. It could be even tighter, but nothing is wasted.

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 14-parameter tool with an output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, two sentences cannot carry the necessary context. The description fails to explain what most parameters do, what the return shape is, or how this tool differs from its six siblings.

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% and 13 of 14 parameters have no textual explanation anywhere. The description only partially touches media_type ('videos can return original video files') and the query syntax, leaving download, safe_mode, use_cache, platforms, quality_mode, retrieval_mode, and the remaining eight parameters completely opaque.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('social platforms') and even names the unit of input (keyword, content ID, post URL). It also carves out a special routing behavior for creator queries. It does not, however, compare itself to siblings like fetch_creator_images or download_images, so an agent must still reason about which tool owns which scenario.

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 when to use it by describing input types and a special query syntax, but it never explicitly says when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks such as direct creator fetches or downloading. A reader can infer the main use case but not the alternatives.

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