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 disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that results are ranked and include ready-to-paste import statements, but it does not clarify read-only status, matching semantics, or what 'installed packages' means in practical terms.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main verb and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the key output detail without redundancy.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and output but leaves usage guidance and behavioral details to inference. The high schema coverage compensates for parameter semantics, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 the input schema already documents all six parameters, including query, set, style, version, and provider. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall search scope, so the baseline 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?

States a specific action ('search icons') and a clear scope ('icon packages installed in the project'), and signals the output ('ranked matches with ready-to-paste import statements'). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_icon and list_providers, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies use when an agent needs to locate an icon by concept, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as get_icon for retrieving a specific icon. The sibling names help, but the description itself leaves the choice to inference.

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