Find an icon texture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns path and FileDataID, and explains the naming convention, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, how the limit parameter works, or what happens when no icons match.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: function and returns, naming convention, and use cases. No fluff or redundant content.

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 search tool, the description covers the return value and use cases. However, it omits details about the limit parameter and does not describe the response format or behavior for empty results, so it is not fully complete.

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 documents 'query' with an example, and the description adds useful naming convention context. However, the 'limit' parameter is not explained in either place, leaving a key part of the parameter semantics uncovered. Coverage is approximately 50%.

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 the tool searches game icon textures by name and returns the path and FileDataID. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like wow_atlas_search, even though the focus on 'icon textures' is specific.

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 gives explicit use cases: picking icons for buttons, addon compartment entries, and .toc IconTexture. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but provides clear context for when to use it.

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