search_icons

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

With no annotations, the description transparently states the output (icon names) and provides scope (2658 icons, 38 categories). It lacks details on pagination or error handling but is sufficient for a search tool.

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-loading the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers usage, output type, and contextual details (icon count, categories). It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 100%, so the schema already defines parameters. The description adds value with example keywords for 'query' and clarifies the 'limit' maximum (50) and default (20), beyond the schema's minimum/maximum.

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 verb-resource combination: 'Search IconPark icons by keyword.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like suggest_icons and list_icon_categories by focusing on keyword search and mentioning compatibility with insert_icon.

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 provides context by noting the tool returns icon names for use with insert_icon and mentions the total count and categories. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare with similar tools like suggest_icons.

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