search_icons

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral context. It adds that the icons are free to use with attribution, explains the available styles, and specifies the return fields (id, style, URLs). This goes beyond a generic statement and helps the agent predict outcomes, though it does not discuss ordering, pagination, or error cases.

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 composed of concise, front-loaded sentences, and each sentence contributes functional information: action, returned properties, style definitions, and licensing. It is efficient and informative, though the style enum listing unnecessarily repeats the 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable level of completeness: you know what the tool searches, what the response shape-ish, and what options exist. It does not describe when to use this tool vs. siblings, or any rate/return-limits beyond what's in schema, but for a search tool these are minor 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 description coverage is 100% with useful parameter documentation (query examples, style enums, limit defaults). The description does include style names, but these duplicates schema enum and doesn't add meaning beyond it. Since the schema already carries the semantics, a 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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Search 161,000+ free Infyicon vector icons.' It also enumerates what is returned (icon id, style, URLs), making the purpose unambiguous. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like uicons_lookup, the search focus is clear enough to stand apart from get_icon_svg/get_icon_png.

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 explains what the tool does but offers no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does not mention, for instance, that if an agent already knows an icon's ID it should use get_icon_svg, or that list_categories should be used for category listing. Usage context is only implied, not explicitly stated.

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