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 core behavior: semantic search, return of URLs, and a large icon library. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search tool these are less critical and the main behaviors are covered.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by the key return type and scale. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 simplicity, two well-documented parameters, and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies what the tool does, what it returns (URLs), and the source domain. No further context is necessary for correct invocation.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100% with both keyword and topK fully described. The description adds context about semantic search and library size but does not meaningfully enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 searches for SVG icons by keyword using semantic search and returns URLs. It specifies a concrete resource (SVG icons) and action (search), making the purpose unmistakable even without sibling comparisons.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a user needs SVG icons matching a keyword/phrase. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives, but with no sibling tools, this level of guidance is clear and sufficient.

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