Search/fetch professional vector icons (Iconify)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses network access, the two operational modes, and that import mode has the same output as riv_import_svg. This covers key side effects and dependencies, though it omits details about error cases or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then concisely explains modes and network needs. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

With no output schema and 5 parameters, the description clearly explains the two main usage modes and result behavior. However, it leaves gaps around parameter combinations (e.g., both query and icon provided), idPrefix semantics, and error conditions, making it adequate but incomplete.

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 80%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between icon and outSpec, and the query-only mode. However, idPrefix remains undocumented, and required-combination behavior is only implicit.

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 it searches Iconify's ~200k icons and converts one into Rive shapes, with specific mention of two modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing riv_import_svg's output equivalence.

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?

It explains two modes, network requirements, and references an alternative tool (riv_import_svg) for output. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or when to prefer riv_import_svg directly.

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