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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose real traits: a 20-slot batch cap, English/Persian input handling, and that the task string is used to disambiguate slot names. It omits what happens past the 20-slot limit and output size/performance implications, so not 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cap, then the disambiguation guidance, then the sibling comparison. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context — batch limit, language handling, task's purpose. The remaining gap is output shape (plan vs assets payload size) which is only partly in the schema, but the core decision inputs are present.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a genuine layer by explaining WHY the task parameter matters (ambiguous slot names resolve correctly) and that slot names are language-agnostic. It says nothing extra about limitPerSlot, responseMode, or preferredStyle, which the schema already covers.

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 (pick/recommend), resource (Digche icon set), and scope (up to 20 named UI slots in one call), which cleanly distinguishes it from the per-icon siblings like search_icons. The 'coherent set' framing also signals it is a batched layout tool, not a lookup.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this instead of one search per icon when laying out a screen,' naming the alternative pattern and the condition that selects this tool. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., single-icon lookups), which keeps it short of a 5.

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