get_icon_guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a document as 'guidance' and that it contains templates, rules, and examples. It doesn't disclose much beyond that, but for a read-only document retrieval tool, the added context is adequate.

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?

The description is well-structured: a one-sentence summary, then a clear directive ('Read this before...'), then a list of contents. Every sentence earns its place and the most important usage instruction is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only document retrieval tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, why an agent would use it, and what it returns. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description explains what the returned document contains, which is the only meaningful semantic information an agent needs. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a style guide document for drawing SVG icons, and explicitly names the sibling tool (render_svg_icon) it supports. It distinguishes itself from get_design_guidance by focusing specifically on icon drawing conventions and templates.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to read this before writing SVG for render_svg_icon, and even mentions when a custom icon is the right answer. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly routes away from alternatives.

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