uicons_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing the operation. It correctly implies a read-only lookup and explains the output format and associated stylesheet. However, it does not mention error behavior, multiple-match semantics, or response shape beyond the single example.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and lamppost compares efficiently. The second half supplies a concrete usage snippet and the stylesheet URL, all in two sentences with no filler.

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 explains what is returned (a CSS class) and how to use it, which strongly supports correct invocation. It does not go as far as describing failure or multiple-result behavior, but for a simple one-param lookup this is largely sufficient.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, `name`, which is described as a 'Glyph name to search'. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, only illustrating a search result. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already provides sufficient meaning.

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 action ('Look up CSS class names'), the resource ('Infyicon UI webfont'), and the scale ('61,000+ glyphs'). The example output `<i class="ii-r-home"></i>` makes the purpose concrete and helps distinguish this from sibling tools that return SVG/PNG icons or list categories.

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?

It explains how to use the returned class, but does not explicitly tell an agent when to choose this tool over `search_icons` or the icon exporters. The intended use case is implied by 'CSS class names' rather than stated as a clear rule or comparison with alternatives.

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