icon_autocomplete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as the agent has no insight into operational constraints or expected behavior beyond the basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get autocomplete suggestions') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It covers the basic purpose but omits critical context like response format, error cases, or performance hints. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more guidance to compensate, but it falls short.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' and 'limit'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a search context, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('autocomplete suggestions for icon search'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_icons' by focusing on autocomplete suggestions rather than full search results. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_collections' or other siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_icons' or 'get_icon'. It mentions 'autocomplete suggestions' but doesn't specify use cases (e.g., for real-time search assistance) or exclusions. Without any contextual cues, the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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