get_icon_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contents (including attribution requirements and the SVG URL), which is genuinely useful because there is no output schema. It says nothing, though, about behavior on a missing icon, whether the optional author/license/category params act as filters or disambiguators, or any permissions/rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the verb, resource, and return contents with zero filler. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned metadata fields, which is the most important missing piece. The remaining gap is selection guidance against the closely-related get_icon and download_icon siblings.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal semantic value — the parenthetical '(with full name and URL)' hints that the license field is structured — and does not explain how the optional author/license/category params change the lookup.

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 and resource ("Return detailed metadata for a specific icon") and enumerates the exact fields returned, so the agent knows this is a metadata lookup rather than a download. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_icon, nor explain how it relates to download_icon, leaving the agent to guess between them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative — despite a sibling named get_icon that appears to serve a very similar purpose. Usage is only implied by the listed return fields.

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