search_icons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('prefix:name') and the default library, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination when limit caps results, or behavior on no matches.

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 short sentences with the core capability front-loaded and zero filler. The return-format example earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: the shape of the returned icon identifier. It is nearly complete, though it could mention the default result limit behavior given the absence of an output schema.

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 query, limit, and libraries, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the libraries default and explains the returned 'prefix:name' shape, but adds no new syntax or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 for icons') plus the scale (200,000+ icons, 150+ icon sets), which is far more specific than the bare name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like recommend_icons or get_icon, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 says to use the 'iconify' library for best results and notes it is the default, which is useful guidance. But it gives no when-to-use vs. when-not framing and never points to recommend_icons (semantic/recommendation search) or list_libraries as alternatives.

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