get_icon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses that the icon_url is temporary and expires in 1 hour, and that the call is expensive with specific quota caps. It doesn't describe every behavioral edge case, but the key constraints are surfaced.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose and temporary URL detail are front-loaded, followed directly by important usage and cost guidance.

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 tool with only two parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides enough context: what it does, a key return value, cost implications, and when to avoid it. It doesn't explain the complete response structure, but the core decision-making context is present.

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 both icon_id and thumbnail_size are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters behave or interact, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the primary action: getting extra details for a single icon, including a temporary SVG icon_url. It also hints at a distinction from search_icons by noting when not to use it, though 'extra details' remains somewhat vague about the full set of fields returned.

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 explicitly warns that this is an expensive icon call with daily/monthly free-trial limits and explicitly says to skip it when search_icons already has the needed metadata. This gives the agent a clear decision rule and a named alternative.

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