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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search functionality but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether the search is case-sensitive, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance with an example. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity and practical information without unnecessary details, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a search function with one parameter) and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter usage but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a search tool without structured output information, more context on what to expect from results would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'Search query to find relevant icons. Separate multiple searches with commas.' The description adds value by providing an example ('e.g., 'home, notification, settings'') that clarifies the format for multiple searches, but it does not significantly expand on the schema's semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description compensates slightly but not substantially.

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 purpose: 'Search for icons by name or tags.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('icons'), and mentions the search criteria ('by name or tags'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_icons' or 'get_icon_glyphs', which might offer alternative ways to retrieve icons.

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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning how to search for multiple icons ('Use commas to search for multiple icons'), which suggests this tool is for filtered searches. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_icons' (which might list all icons without filtering) or 'get_icon_glyphs' (which might retrieve specific icon data). No exclusions or clear alternatives are named.

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