i_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious trait: there is no per-icon detail endpoint and the data comes from the search cache. That implies staleness and failure modes an agent would otherwise not anticipate. It omits what the response contains and how it behaves when the cached entry is gone.

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 sentences, no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the constraint. The parenthetical is doing real explanatory work rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place a caller could learn what 'detailed information' means, and it never says which fields come back. The cache-dependency is well covered, but the return shape is left entirely to discovery. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for a tool whose whole value is the returned detail.

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% and there is a single required id, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by scoping the id to a search-cache-derived identifier, which explains why an id from elsewhere may fail. That is genuine added semantics rather than restating 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about an icon on iconfont.cn'. That clearly separates it from i_search (which finds icons) and i_download_svg (which fetches assets). It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the resource is distinctive enough that an agent can place it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a hard precondition: the icon MUST have been returned by a recent search call. That is a real routing rule and prevents the agent from calling it with an arbitrary id. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over just reading the search result payload, nor what to do if the cache entry is stale.

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