search_fluent_icons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that SVG content is fetched server-side so dead URLs can't break the workflow, explains the return format (svgBase64 ready for insert_image), and gives retry behavior. It omits rate limits or pagination, but those are minor for a search tool.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important behavioral detail (server-side fetch) and practical tips. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary return format, integration hint (insert_image), and fallback strategy. An agent can call it correctly without further information.

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 all four parameters are fully documented by the schema. The description adds only tangential guidance (prefer mono variants, synonym examples) without explaining parameter syntax or interactions beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search Microsoft Fluent UI icon library.' No sibling tool overlaps with icon search, so the purpose is unambiguous without needing explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Adds clear usage context: prefer mono (_M) variants for professional decks, retry with synonyms if matches are poor, and ties results to insert_image. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is sufficient for this focused tool.

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