search_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return fields (name, uuid, price, preview URL) and highlights that uuid is needed for download/preview, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, default values, or the read-only nature of the operation beyond the implication of a search. Some behavioral context is added, but not exhaustive.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action ('Search Iconscout') and asset types, followed by the key return value information. There is no redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.

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 the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential return field information but omits pagination behavior and the default asset type (icon). However, the schema documents defaults and pagination parameters, so the description is mostly complete as an overview. The mention of 'per result' implies a list, and the uuid note gives necessary usage context. A small gap exists around default scope and pagination, but it is adequately covered by the schema.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptive text for all 7 parameters, including defaults, enums, and examples. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already contains. Since the schema handles parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description's mention of return fields does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 Iconscout for specific asset types (icons, illustrations, 3D assets, Lottie animations). The verb 'Search' is specific, the resource is named, and the asset types are enumerated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that get, preview, or download a single asset.

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 implies the tool is the starting point for finding assets before using get/preview/download, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The usage context is inferred from the sibling tool names rather than directly stated.

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