find_icons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world scope are covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no notes on search matching behavior, result ranking, pagination/limit semantics, or that results are names only (not rendered icons).

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?

A single seven-word sentence with zero waste, and the purpose is front-loaded before the consumer reference. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a three-parameter search tool the description omits any guidance on how results should be used (e.g. passing a returned name to make_icon) or how limit/icon_set affect the search, leaving real gaps.

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 67% – query and icon_set carry good descriptions (including the mdi vs brand semantics), but limit is undocumented, and 'Find icon names' adds no syntax or matching guidance beyond the schema. This is the baseline case where the schema does most of the work.

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 ('Find icon names') and ties it to the sibling tool that consumes the results ('for make_icon'). That pairing separates it from unrelated siblings like find_plugins or ha_search, though it doesn't explain what an icon name is or how results are shaped.

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 phrase 'for make_icon' implies the intended workflow (search here, then call make_icon), which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no alternative search path named.

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