Find evo-web icons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds that results include tag names and Marko 6 usage snippets, which is genuinely useful return-format context, but it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action, the searchable corpus, and the return value with zero filler. It could be marginally improved by adding a short clause about the limit parameter, 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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, and the description covers the corpus and the response shape. The unexplained 'limit' parameter and the absence of any routing guidance leave it adequate but 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema and the description reinforces it with concrete keyword examples including a size suffix. The 'limit' parameter (1-100) is not explained anywhere, which is the main semantic gap; at this coverage level a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search the evo-web icon set') and states what comes back ('tag names plus Marko 6 usage'), so the agent knows this is an icon lookup rather than a general doc search. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_docs or list_components, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 example queries ('cart', 'chevron down', 'close 16') implicitly show the expected input style and that size tokens can be folded into the query, which guides usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as search_docs for broader lookups.

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