image_search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds crucial provider-specific behavior (e.g., 'Brave returns up to 200; Google up to 10') and notes that some filters are ignored by Brave. It also mentions result caching duration (30 minutes). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (two sentences plus a note) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds meaningful information without unnecessary verbosity. The structure effectively separates purpose, filtering capabilities, usage guidance, and behavioral notes.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, multiple providers, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral nuances (provider-specific limitations, result count limits, freshness), and parameter semantics. It provides a complete picture for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters. The description adds value by grouping parameters and clarifying provider-specific behavior (e.g., 'Google/SearchAPI only — Brave ignores it'), which goes beyond the schema individual descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Find images on the web matching your description.' It distinguishes from sibling tool web_search by specifying when to use each, and lists multiple filtering capabilities (size, type, color, etc.), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance: 'Best for finding visual references or assets — use web_search if you need text content from pages that contain images.' It also mentions result freshness (30 minutes). While it doesn't exhaustively list all scenarios, it gives clear context for when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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