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 discloses the call is a cheap 'service call' and provides concrete quota context (2,000/month, 1,000/day), which shapes agent behavior. The warning against redundant get_icon follow-ups and the return-field list further clarify what the agent can rely on. It doesn't cover auth or error behavior, but for a search tool this is non-critical.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return values, inter-tool routing, and cost/pagination guidance. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by actionable caveats. No fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 search tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, when to use alternatives, and quota-driven pagination strategy. It does not specify output shape in detail, but the listed return fields mitigate the missing output schema. Minor omissions like authentication or rate-limit exhaustion handling keep it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds meta-advice about query specificity and pagination cost, but no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search The Noun Project for icons,' and enumerates the return fields (IDs, style, license, thumbnails, tags, attribution). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_collections (collections) and get_icon (single icon) without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to follow up: 'do NOT follow up with get_icon for every result.' Names the correct alternative for files: 'Use download_icon only when the user wants a file.' Also gives search strategy guidance: 'Prefer a specific query over pagination.' This is textbook when/when-not guidance with named alternatives.

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