search_icons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the single-keyword limitation, which is useful, but says nothing about network dependency, rate limits, result format, or whether pagination fields are honored — significant gaps for an external-site search tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and the key constraint front-loaded; nothing wasted.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not describe the shape of returned results or how page/pageSize/sortType interact, leaving the agent to infer pagination behavior. Parameter coverage in the schema mitigates this, but return-value expectation is entirely absent.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description echoes the single-keyword constraint already stated on the q parameter and adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 (search) and resource (icons) plus the data source (iconfont.cn), so an agent immediately knows what it retrieves. Siblings (cache stats/clear) are unrelated, so no differentiation is needed, but the description does not note scope like default page size or that results are icon metadata.

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 parenthetical 'single keyword search only' implies a constraint on usage but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. There is no guidance on what to do for multi-word or multi-concept queries, which is the main selection ambiguity here.

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