logo_search

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by detailing supported formats, theme variations ('if available'), and the exact structure of results (component name, code, import instructions). It does not cover failure modes or no-result behavior, but the disclosed behavior is sufficient for the agent to anticipate what will happen.

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 well-organized with clear sections for purpose, usage, examples, formats, and output structure. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because example queries partially repeat the usage triggers, but each section earns its place and the key info is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns, including output format options and result fields. However, it mentions 'category filtering' even though the input schema has no category parameter, and it does not explain what happens when a logo is not found, leaving minor but real gaps.

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 schema already describes both parameters (format and queries), so the baseline is 3; the description adds significant value by defining what each format returns (TSX/JSX/SVG), providing concrete example query arrays, and showing how command-style inputs map to the queries parameter. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Search and return logos in specified format (JSX, TSX, SVG).' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which concern component inspiration, refining, and building) by focusing on logo lookup and output formats. The example queries and command styles reinforce exactly what the tool does.

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 'When to use this tool' section explicitly lists two concrete trigger conditions: user types '/logo' command or asks to add a company logo not in the local project. The phrase 'that's not in the local project' provides a clear when-not-to-use condition, effectively excluding cases where the logo is already available locally.

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