Search Wikimedia Commons Images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behaviors. It mentions the optional thumbnail composite image and that results include metadata with download URLs. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or the strict keyword matching (which is in the schema's query description). Some useful context is added, but 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and key features, and ends with a practical usage hint. No wasted words.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a solid overview: what it does, what results contain, and a usage example. It could mention pagination or that results are limited, but the schema covers limits. The description is fairly complete for its complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters well. The description adds no extra parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Search for images on Wikimedia Commons') and the resource, while mentioning key outputs (metadata, download URLs, optional thumbnail). It is specific enough to distinguish from a generic image search, even without sibling tools.

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 a clear use case ('Use results to e.g. fetch full images that are relevant for your task') and implies when to use this tool (when needing images from Wikimedia Commons). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use, but with no sibling tools this is acceptable.

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