search_pixabay_images

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Search for') but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what the response looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with 4 parameters. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or usage constraints. While the schema handles parameters well, the overall context for proper tool invocation is insufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or usage examples. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search for') and resource ('images on Pixabay'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_pixabay_videos' by specifying images, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'search_pixabay_videos' or any other potential alternatives, nor does it provide context about appropriate use cases or exclusions. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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