Search UI webfont classes

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

Annotations already signal read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior: case-insensitive substring matching, up to 40 matches, no pagination, empty-name error, no auth, and attribution requirement. This goes well beyond what the annotations convey and does not contradict 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 dense but every clause earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then covers output format, usage guidance, matching limits, auth, and attribution. No filler or 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what the tool returns: CSS class names in both variants, a ready <i> tag, and the stylesheet link. It also covers edge behavior (empty name, match limit) and the single parameter, making the tool fully callable from the description alone.

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% and the schema describes the name parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by defining the matching mode (case-insensitive substring), examples ('home', 'arrow'), and the empty-name error condition.

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: search the Infyicon UI webfont by glyph name and return CSS class names plus a ready <i> tag. The description clearly distinguishes this from search_icons by framing it as the icon-font/CSS-class counterpart to SVG/PNG search.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use ONLY when the user wants an icon font / CSS class (like Font Awesome usage)' and names the alternative tool for SVG/PNG files. This gives an agent a clear decision rule rather than leaving selection to inference.

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