Web3icon by Yuhitsuro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'exact metadata and source URLs' as return expectations, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is acceptable for a simple read-only getter but adds limited extra context.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the key action ('Get') and the output ('exact metadata and source URLs'). It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.

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?

This is a simple, low-risk read-only tool with strong annotations, so the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify the return format, error behavior, or how to choose between this and sibling tools. These gaps keep it from being fully 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 0%: the description does not mention the 'slug' parameter at all. The schema defines only name, minLength, and maxLength. For a low-coverage case, the description should compensate by explaining what a slug is or how to use it, but it does not, so the agent must rely solely on the parameter name.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get exact metadata and source URLs for one published Web3icon asset.' It clearly indicates this tool retrieves a single published asset, distinguishing it from siblings like search_assets (searching) and get_embed_code (embedding).

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?

Usage context is implied: the description says 'for one published Web3icon asset,' so an agent can infer it is for fetching a known asset. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_embed_code or search_assets, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already convey read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that the embed URL enables adoption measurement by Yuhitsuro, which is a side-effect not captured in annotations. This goes beyond basic safety traits.

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, front-loads the core function, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and a key contextual detail (adoption measurement). It doesn't mention prerequisites like the asset being published, but the simplicity and annotations mitigate the gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only indirectly references the format parameter by listing 'HTML, Markdown, or URL'. The slug parameter is implied as the asset identifier but never explicitly defined, leaving users to infer its meaning.

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 function: creating an HTML, Markdown, or URL embed for a published asset. The specific verb and resource scope distinguish it from siblings like get_asset (likely fetching asset details) and search_assets (searching for assets).

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 implies usage for generating embeds but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of adoption measurement adds context but does not serve as an exclusion or alternative direction.

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

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries full burden. It adds input constraints (no contact details, URLs, wallet addresses, private data), but does not disclose what happens after the request (e.g., confirmation, persistence, or response format). This is a partial disclosure, not a complete behavioral picture.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage context and constraints. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 request tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, and input restrictions, but lacks details about the outcome or any follow-up. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 only 33% (only 'concept' has a description). The description does not directly explain 'concept' or 'useCase', though it implicitly covers 'category' by mentioning icon/illustration/animation. This does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Request a Web3 icon, illustration, or animation that is missing from the catalog') with a clear resource and condition. It differentiates from siblings like search_assets (which finds existing assets) and get_asset (which retrieves specific assets).

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this after search_assets returns no suitable result.' This clearly defines when to use this tool and implicitly differentiates it from the search tool. Additional constraints ('Do not include contact details...') give further usage rules.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return fields (source URLs, embed URLs, creator, license), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and target. Every clause contributes either to what the tool searches or what it returns, with no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only search tool with annotations and a simple schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the search scope and return fields. It does not explicitly mention the category filter or limit behavior, but those are visible in the schema, so the description suffices for most use cases.

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 only 33% (only query has a description), and the tool description fails to compensate. It mentions 'by topic', which redundantly paraphrases the query parameter, but provides no explanation of the limit or category filters. Thus it adds little meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'free Web3 icons, illustrations, and animations', which is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_asset and get_embed_code. It also lists return types, making its purpose 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 implies usage for searching assets by topic, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it only implicitly conveys the appropriate context.

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