search_icons

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose key behavior: returns SVG icons with license info, and implies a read-only search. However, it lacks details on search behavior (matching, ordering), result size limits, or potential error handling, making it only partially transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding value: what it searches, what it returns, and when to use it. Front-loaded with the verb 'Search.' No fluff or 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 straightforward search tool with a well-documented schema and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it. It covers the resource, return type, and use cases. It doesn't mention potential alternatives but that's more relevant to usage guidelines, which already scored a 4.

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 100%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema covers parameters well. No bonus or penalty beyond baseline.

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 searches for icons from a large collection (200,000+ icons, 150+ sets) and returns SVG icons with license info. It mentions use cases ('UI icons, app icons, symbols') which helps distinguish from sibling tools like search_logos or search_emoji, but it does not explicitly differentiate from search_vectors, which could overlap.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Perfect for finding UI icons, app icons, and symbols.' It implies usage for icon-specific needs but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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