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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the ranked ref format returned and the coverage limitation of the tb set for brand logos, which the annotations do not convey.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core behavior (search all sets, return ranked refs) is front-loaded before the caveat about Tabler and brand sets. Slightly telegraphic, but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully explains the return format (`ref-icon:` refs and their consumers). For a simple read-only search tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, this is nearly complete; only cross-tool routing guidance is missing.

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 all four parameters (q, set, kind, limit) are already documented in the schema, including the kind enum and the limit default. The description's note that brands live in fa/si adds a little color for set/kind selection but no syntax or format beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 (Search) plus scope (every icon set) and specifies the return artifact (`ref-icon:<set>/<Name>` refs) and where they are used (Icon nodes, Button/Link icon.value). This clearly separates it from siblings like find_image and find_video.

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 implies set-selection guidance ('Tabler (tb) lacks many brand logos; brands come from fa / si / …'), which helps pick a set or the brand kind. However, it never states when to use this tool versus the obvious siblings (find_image, find_video) or any prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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