search_icons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned field set and that filtering is optional, which is useful behavioral context. It omits other traits an agent would want: read-only/safety profile, pagination behavior beyond the limit param, rate limits, and auth requirements. Disclosing the return shape is real value, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then return values, then filters; no filler. Slightly more could be said about routing, but nothing present is wasted.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, explaining the returned fields (including the SVG URL) is exactly the missing piece and it is supplied. The schema fully covers the parameters, and the absence of annotations makes the safety/profile omission a modest gap rather than a fatal one.

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 query, limit, license, and category are all documented in the schema itself; the baseline is 3. The description only restates optional category/license filtering and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (Search) and resource (bioicons.com icon library) scoped to keyword search, and enumerates what comes back (name, category, license, author, SVG URL). It never contrasts against siblings like get_icon or list_categories, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Search ... by keyword' plus 'Optionally filter by category and/or license' implies the discovery use case, which is adequate for a search tool. However there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. use this to find icons, then get_icon_info or download_icon), leaving the agent to infer routing among four siblings.

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