get_icon_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, and it discloses that output includes usage examples for frameworks, which is useful context. However, it does not describe return format (SVG, code snippets), error behavior, or any auth/rate-limit considerations for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and output scope, the second supplies the essential input format. No filler, no redundancy beyond a minor overlap with the schema example.

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 simple one-parameter read tool the description is adequate: it says what it retrieves and how to call it. But with no output schema, it remains vague about what 'icon data' actually contains (e.g., SVG path, license, usage snippets), leaving a meaningful gap for an agent that needs to know what to expect.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the same format and examples without adding new semantics such as case sensitivity, prefix lists, or fallback behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('icon data'), with scope ('specific icon') and a bonus detail ('usage examples for popular frameworks'). Clear enough to distinguish from search_icons (which finds icons) and get_all_icon_sets (which lists sets), but the description never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts its role, so it stops short of 5.

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 an invocation format ('prefix:icon-name') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_icons or get_icon_set. No when/when-not conditions, no prerequisites, and no explicit routing to siblings.

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