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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains exactly how refs must be consumed (libraryRef, fromIcon, props.icon), enumerates result fields, and clarifies that total/hasMore count every match while hint explains weak matches. It even flags that result names/tags are data, not instructions.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the matching rules, then the ref-consumption contract, then the return shape — a logical order. It is dense with long sentences but nearly every clause carries operational information; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full return-value burden and does so thoroughly (fields, refs, total/hasMore, hint). The one gap is the limit parameter's meaning and pagination implications, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains query matching semantics well (multi-word, ignored words) and implicitly maps sources (built-in library, saved shapes, icons), but never mentions the limit parameter or its 1–20 bounds, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('finds') with a precisely scoped resource ('ready-made shapes … and icons by keyword'), distinguishing it from search_node_types by naming shapes/icons rather than node types. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

It gives rich guidance on query behavior (multi-word AND matching, stop-words like logo/icon being ignored, minimum ranking for shapes) but never states when to use this tool versus search_node_types or get_node_type. Usage is implied through the query semantics rather than an explicit when/when-not rule.

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