Search icons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the icon sets are local, their sizes and content types, and that exact slugs are unpredictable. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'search' implies it, and the description adds meaningful context about what the search covers.

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 well-structured sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and set details, then the usage guidance. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered. The description provides all necessary context: what sets exist, why search is needed, and how it relates to get_icon. For a search tool with three params, this is 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete query examples ('wrench', 'repair', 'github') and the concept of 'English keyword/concept', which clarifies the query parameter's semantics beyond the schema's generic description.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search two local icon sets by English keyword/concept', clearly naming both icon sets with sizes and examples. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_icon by stating this tool is for finding the exact name/set to fetch.

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 instructs 'Use this before get_icon' and explains why: 'exact slugs aren't always guessable.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the obvious alternative and provides the rationale.

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