show_icon_info

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, but it only states a generic action. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether network calls or permissions are needed, or any side effects. The verb 'show' implies read-only but this is not explicitly stated.

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 that is front-loaded and free of redundancy. However, it is under-specified, which slightly detracts from what would otherwise be a very concise entry.

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 the tool has two parameters, no annotations, and a workflow implied by siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship to find_icon, how query affects results, or what 'detailed information' includes. The output schema exists but does not cover usage context.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It fails to explain the purpose of 'query' or 'count', leaving the agent without information on how to fill these parameters correctly.

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 'Show detailed information about found icons' clearly specifies a verb (show) and resource (detailed information about found icons). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like download_icons or roll_dice, though it does not explicitly contrast with find_icon.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The phrase 'found icons' vaguely implies a prior step, but there is no mention of when to use this tool versus find_icon or other siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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