search_icons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys that matching is by name or keywords but does not disclose result format, number of results, ordering, or whether partial matches are allowed. The read-only nature is implied by 'searches' but not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 simple one-parameter search tool, the description is fairly complete. It lacks explicit return-value details, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity reduce the need. The gap is the missing sibling differentiation, which is covered under usage guidelines.

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?

The schema already documents the query parameter 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that the query can be a name or keywords, which is beyond the generic 'Search query'.

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 clear verb ('Searches') and resource ('Lucide icons') along with the matching basis ('by name or keywords'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by implying search semantics versus list/retrieve, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_icons or retrieve_icon. An agent cannot tell whether to search first or call retrieve_icon directly if an ID is known.

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