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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It indicates read-only behavior through verbs like 'Find' and 'Returns', and specifies the output (URLs, paths, category, aliases, links). It does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or mention authentication/rate limits, but the nature of a logo lookup inherently implies a safe read operation. This is a reasonable level of transparency for the tool's simplicity.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose and output; the second provides usage context and parameter examples. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy. It is well-structured, with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by actionable details. No filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns (top 5 matches, URL/path/category/links), and how to supply inputs. It also gives real-world use cases, making it self-contained for correct invocation. No critical information for a basic lookup seems 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 coverage is 100% (both parameters are described in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context by providing concrete examples (ecs, obs, modelarts, 对象存储) for the 'service' parameter and example categories (计算, 存储, etc.) for 'category'. This goes beyond the raw schema definitions, helping the agent understand acceptable input formats and values.

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 action ('Find') and the resource ('official Huawei Cloud service logo from the Huawei Cloud Icons library'). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on auth, CLI execution, sandboxing, or region listings. The purpose is immediately evident and unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool ('Use when generating PPT, architecture diagrams (draw.io), or frontend pages that need official Huawei Cloud service logos') and how to invoke it ('Provide service ... or category ... to browse'). It also states the output format ('Returns top 5 matches'), giving clear operational guidance. While it doesn't mention when-not-to-use, the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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