image_search

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses the return format but lacks details on behavior: no info on rate limits, safety (likely read-only), pagination, or authentication. It relies on the service name (DuckDuckGo) for implicit trust, but more explicit transparency would help.

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 concise sentences front-load the primary action and return value. No unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 4 parameters (including enums) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't mention filters like size or type, though the schema covers them. The agent may need to inspect the schema to understand filtering capabilities, making the description incomplete for quick decision-making.

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 baseline 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, merely confirming the tool's purpose. No additional context for the enums or the max_results default.

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 states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'images using DuckDuckGo', clearly differentiating from sibling tools (e.g., web_search for general web, download_image for downloading). It also specifies the return type: a list with URLs, titles, and sources.

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 guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., web_search). While the name and description imply image-specific search, it doesn't exclude cases where general web search might be better, nor does it mention limitations.

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