search_icons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering options but doesn't describe critical behaviors like pagination (implied by 'next_page'/'prev_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response format looks like. This is inadequate for a search tool with 9 parameters.

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 and briefly mentions key capabilities. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted space.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the search results format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or usage constraints. For a search tool with rich filtering options, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing some filterable attributes ('style, line weight, public domain, and more') but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Search for icons on The Noun Project.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('icons'), and mentions the platform ('The Noun Project'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_collections' or 'icon_autocomplete', which prevents 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_collections' or 'icon_autocomplete'. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites for usage, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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