fofa_icon_search

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those: it performs an outbound fetch of a public website favicon and computes a MurmurHash3 value before searching FOFA, which is behavior not shown in the schema or annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that lays out the full pipeline without fluff. Every phrase adds meaningful information, and the structure makes the operation sequence immediately understandable.

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?

Although annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, the description leaves three of four parameters completely undefined and offers no guidance on edge cases like unreachable favicons or invalid URLs. For an agent to call this tool correctly, the optional parameters need semantic explanation.

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%, and the description only implicitly clarifies the url parameter by mentioning a public website favicon. The parameters full, size, and fields receive no explanation at all, so the agent cannot confidently know what they control or how to set them.

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 workflow: fetch a public favicon, compute FOFA MurmurHash3, and search matching assets. It is specific about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like fofa_search or fofa_search_next, so it stops short of a top 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus fofa_search, fofa_search_next, or other siblings. The usage is only implied by the icon+hashing approach; there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions.

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