Suggest Icon Library

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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: 'Deterministic curated guidance' and the critical caveat 'icons are NOT bundled; install the chosen library in your own project'. The return-content list (license, install command, coverage) also clarifies what the agent can expect. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's additions are the right kind of value.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the key behavioral caveat, then composition guidance. Each sentence earns its place, though 'universal icon best-practices' is slightly verbose phrasing.

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, the description compensates by enumerating return fields (license, install command, coverage, fit rationale, usage rules, best-practices). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a simple 2-param schema, almost everything an agent needs is present. Minor gaps: no mention of result ordering or no-match 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have rich descriptions already. The tool description's intent examples ('minimal SaaS dashboard', 'iOS app') overlap heavily with the schema's own examples, so it adds little beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Recommend'), resource ('icon library'), and the input framing ('from an intent/vibe/platform') with concrete examples. The icon-specific focus clearly differentiates it from siblings like suggest_font_pairing and generate_color_system.

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?

Provides clear context via 'Pair with suggest_font_pairing and generate_color_system', explicitly naming the natural companion tools for a design-system flow. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the intent/vibe input framing effectively implies the triggering scenario.

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