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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest: it tells the agent what comes back ('exact icon names and component names'), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not discuss result ordering, empty-result behavior, or how 'limit' affects matching quality, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, what it returns, and the precondition for calling it. Purpose and examples are front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, return shape, and usage trigger adequately. Only marginal gaps remain — result ordering and behavior on zero matches — which an agent could infer but would prefer to be told.

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 would be 3, but the description adds real meaning by illustrating the kind of natural-language meaning terms that work ('delete', 'settings', 'payment', 'dirham') — notably a domain-specific term that signals semantic rather than prefix matching. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ('Find Omakase icons') plus the distinguishing modality ('by meaning'), backed by four concrete example queries. It is clearly not list_icons or get_icon, though it never names a sibling explicitly to make the contrast airtight.

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?

'Always search before using an icon name you are unsure of' gives a clear trigger condition for reaching for this tool. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. when you already know the exact name) or naming list_icons/get_icon as alternatives, so it is strong context without full routing logic.

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