Find Icon Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and a closed-world search. The description adds genuinely non-derived behavior: results come back as name + style with scores suppressed, and the agent must not auto-select — it must present and ask. Return-shape and cardinality limits are not stated, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in sentence one, then workflow, then a vocabulary list and examples — all of which earn their place. The workflow instruction sits mid-paragraph where a bulleted or leading position would read faster, but there is no filler.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, query construction, expected return shape (name + style, no scores), and required agent behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by teaching how to compose the query: style traits, mood, and use-case vocabularies, plus three concrete query-to-library examples. That is real added meaning beyond 'Style description or personality traits to match.'

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 and resource ('Search for icon libraries') plus the mechanism ('semantic search') and output ('closest matches'). The word 'library' is repeated, which implicitly separates it from find-icons (individual icons) and detect-icon-library (detection) without needing to 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?

Gives explicit triggering context ('After a design system is ready') and downstream workflow ('SHOW the user the closest matches... then ask which they want, don't auto-pick'). It does not explicitly exclude or route to the related siblings find-icons, install-icons, or detect-icon-library, which an agent choosing among them would find useful.

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