uicons_lookup

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining side effects and limits. It implies a read-only lookup by saying 'look up' and shows the expected result pattern, but it does not disclose match semantics, such as exact match, partial search, case-insensitivity, what happens on no match, or return shape. It adds some behavioral context through the usage example, but important traits remain unspecified.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that deliver purpose, a usage example, and the needed stylesheet link. There is no unnecessary wording, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The definition works for a one-parameter lookup tool because the schema is clear and the usage example helps the agent call it correctly. However, the description does not explain the result format, whether multiple matches are returned, or how this lookup differs from search_icons. Without an output schema or note differentiating it from sibling tools, an agent could still be uncertain about invocation expectations.

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 single parameter `name` is completely documented in the input schema with the description 'Glyph name to search' and a couple of examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond that, so the 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 action is 'Look up CSS class names in the Infyicon UI webfont' and gives a concrete usage example with an <i> tag. It specifically identifies the resource (CSS class names) and the data source (61,000+ glyph webfont), distinguishing it from sibling tools that return PNG, SVG, or category lists.

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 tells the agent how to use an output like <i class='ii-r-home'></i> and supplies the stylesheet URL, but it does not say when to choose this tool over search_icons, get_icon_png, or get_icon_svg. The 'when to use' context is implied rather than explicit, and no exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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