download_icons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that icons are downloaded to a local directory, but does not clarify important behaviors such as whether files are overwritten, whether a directory is created if missing, what file naming conventions are used, or what the tool returns upon success or failure. For a write side-effect tool, this is insufficient.

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 clear sentence with no redundant words, making it concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated, but it does not waste words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the full context of the tool's behavior, including return values, error conditions, and parameter effects. The provided one-liner does not cover these, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It only implicitly references 'query' via the phrase 'given query', but leaves 'size' and 'count' completely undefined. The tool does not provide any guidance on how these affect the download, forcing the agent to guess.

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: 'Download icons for the given query to local directory'. It specifies the action (download), the object (icons), the source (query), and the destination (local directory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_icon and show_icon_info, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to download icons based on a query to a local directory. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like find_icon for searching, so it falls short of the highest score.

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