Batch UI Image and Icon Discovery

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

With no annotations, the description does real work by disclosing capped concurrent provider requests and a short in-process cache, which warns the agent that results may be reused across calls. However, it says nothing about rate limits, failure modes, or what the response contains, leaving a meaningful gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 compact clauses with the core action front-loaded and the discovery-only boundary placed at the end. The phrase "reduce repeated design work" is mildly promotional but still conveys caching behavior.

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 omits any indication of return structure (how many results per query, whether images and icons are separated) and does not cover the undocumented parameters. It is adequate to recognize the tool but not fully sufficient to call it confidently.

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 67%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it never mentions query count limits, the default provider, or the default icon family. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema documents most parameters, but the description does not compensate for the remaining undocumented ones.

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 states a specific verb and combined resource set ("search multiple relevant images and icons in one MCP call"), which implicitly distinguishes it from the single-type siblings find_icons and find_images. It never names those siblings outright, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

"Discovery only; licensing and download remain separate" gives a useful boundary that points an agent toward a download step, but it never states when to pick this tool over find_icons or find_images, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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