logo_search

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

No annotations supplied, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return formats (JSX/TSX/SVG), theme availability, and result structure (component name, code, import instructions). This goes well beyond a generic 'search' but could further state read-only nature or external data source.

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?

Well-organized with a summary line followed by targeted sections (when to use, examples, formats, results). Every bullet earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to scan. Length is justified by the richness of needed context.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully comprehensive. It explains purpose, usage triggers, parameter semantics, expected outputs, and even return value shape, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning by explaining each format option ('TSX: Returns TypeScript React component') and providing realistic query examples for the 'queries' parameter, including command style and phrase variants.

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 opens with 'Search and return logos in specified format (JSX, TSX, SVG),' a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (component builder/inspiration/refiner) by focusing on logo search and retrieval.

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?

Explicit 'When to use this tool' section lists two concrete scenarios (user types '/logo' command or requests a non-local logo). Clear context and example queries, but it does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so misses the top tier.

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