i_search_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses default scope, the source-labeling of merged results, and a login prerequisite for one source, but says nothing about pagination semantics across multiple sources, failure behavior when a source is unauthenticated, or result ordering/merging rules.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then defaults, four short sentences, no filler. There is mild redundancy between "Search icons across ALL... sources" and "By default searches all sources," which costs it a point but does not obscure meaning.

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 4-parameter federated search with no output schema and no annotations, this covers purpose, defaults, source keywords, auth prerequisite, and roughly what comes back. Remaining gaps are pagination interplay across sources and error behavior for the login-gated source, which are secondary but would matter operationally.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by defining the special source keyword values "free" (all open sources) and "all" (everything), which the schema's plain id-list example does not convey. It adds nothing for page or pageSize, which the schema already documents.

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 concrete verb and resource: "Search icons across ALL or specific data sources," and the word "ALL" plus "combined results with source labels" signals a federated search, which differentiates it from a single-source sibling like i_search. It never names i_search explicitly, so the contrast is implied rather than stated.

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 actionable usage context: default is all sources, use the sources parameter to narrow, shorthand keywords "free" and "all" exist, and Iconfont requires login. It also points to i_sources for valid ids. What's missing is guidance on when to pick this over i_search or i_list_collections for the same intent.

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