search_icons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search intent and does not mention what the function returns, whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or how results are ordered. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no other metadata.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. However, its brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions, so while it is concise, it is not fully helpful.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain the return value and behavior, but it does not. It fails to mention whether results are icon names, identifiers, or metadata, and does not describe the effect of the limit parameter, making the tool under-specified for an agent to fully understand its behavior.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It maps 'meaning' to the query parameter and 'style' to the style parameter, but it omits the limit parameter entirely and doesn't clarify what 'meaning' entails (e.g., search by name or tags). This partial coverage leaves the parameter semantics incomplete.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'official Material Symbols', with scope 'by meaning and style'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_icon, import_icon, and update_icon, which are mutation operations.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or compare to sibling tools such as audit_icons or preview_icons, leaving the usage context implied rather than stated.

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