search_icons_tool

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent. It adds value by detailing the return structure (list with fields like path, provider, category, name, usage), which goes beyond annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 (purpose, args, returns) but is slightly verbose. It could be more concise, but the structure aids readability.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields and parameter examples. It does not mention error handling or limitations, but is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so effectively: 'query: Search term (e.g., 'database', 'aws lambda')' and 'provider: Optional filter by provider ('AWS', 'Azure', 'GCP', 'Networking')', adding examples and clarifying usage beyond the schema's titles.

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 the current icon catalog with semantic matching,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_icon_providers_tool' which lists providers, making this tool's purpose distinct.

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 explains the tool fetches the live icon catalog and provides intelligent search, setting clear context. It lists parameters with examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, though it's implied by the sibling list.

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