image_search

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds key behavioral details: 'Returns up to 10 image links per search' and 'Results stay fresh for 30 minutes', which go beyond the 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by filter details, usage guidance, and a caching note. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 has 9 parameters (only 1 required), a rich output schema, and informative annotations, the description covers the high-level behavior (returning up to 10 image links), caching duration (30 minutes), and alternative tools. It is complete for an AI agent to understand context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes the filter categories (size, type, color, file format) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide. The example for the query parameter is helpful but not extraordinary.

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 finds images on the web matching a description, using a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('images on the web'). It distinguishes from siblings like web_search by explicitly noting when to use which.

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 on when to use this tool ('Best for finding visual references or assets') and when not to ('use web_search if you need text content from pages that contain images'). It also mentions a 30-minute cache freshness, aiding in usage decisions.

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