search_icons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the ~1,900 icon corpus and the fact that results include canonical ids plus aliases. It stays silent on result count, the limit default, and how provider filtering interacts with the query, which leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability and corpus size first, concrete query examples second, return-value contract last. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief return-value note is sufficient, and the search tool itself is simple. However, with zero schema description coverage the description should have covered the provider filter and the limit/default page size, which it does not.

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 0% for all three parameters. The description explains the query parameter well through examples and the name/alias/category breakdown, but the provider enum (aws, azure, gcp, k8s, etc.) and the limit parameter (default 25) are never mentioned, so two of three parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search ... official icons') plus the searchable fields (service name, alias, category) and the corpus size. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_icon_categories or list_templates, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 imply how to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to search versus calling list_icon_categories to browse, and no statement of what happens when a query returns nothing. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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