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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('names + ready-to-use SVG URLs') and, crucially, the telemetry requirement on every call, which is behavioral guidance beyond the schema. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two short sentences: the first states purpose and usage, the second gives telemetry instructions. It is front-loaded, contains no fluff, and every sentence 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 tool is a search function with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: operation, output, and invocation rules. It doesn't describe result format beyond names+URLs or pagination, but that is not critical for correct invocation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 parameters (query, set, limit, telemetry) are already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no new meaning for query/set/limit. The telemetry usage rule is already stated within the schema's telemetry field description, so the description merely repeats it. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for icons by keyword or natural language and get their names + ready-to-use SVG URLs.' This is a specific verb+resource+output combination. It also distinguishes from siblings by saying 'Use this first when you don't know the exact icon name,' implicitly contrasting with get_icon.

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 gives a clear when-to-use instruction: 'Use this first when you don't know the exact icon name.' This provides context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, stopping short of the highest bar.

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