Get related icons

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable extra context: the error condition for non-slug_number ids, exclusion of the source icon from results, and the free-with-attribution requirement. These go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single paragraph with clear front-loading of the core action and usage intent. It includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Read-only' is already in annotations) and could be tightened, but it is not verbose or disorganized.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects: result count, theme/style filtering, error handling, and exclusion of the source icon. It does not specify the exact return structure (e.g., list of ids vs. objects), but that may be inferred from context. Overall, it provides sufficient information 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both `id` and `limit` already described with formats and constraints. The description mentions the id format ('slug_number') and source tools, but this largely reiterates the schema. It does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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's function: taking an icon id and returning up to 30 related icons in the same theme and styles. It distinguishes itself from search_icons by explicitly noting when to use each, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for offering variations, alternatives or building a matching icon set') and when to use the alternative ('Use search_icons instead when you do not yet have an id'). It also mentions the id format requirement, covering key constraints.

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