get_icon_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return type ('embedded SVG image'), which is useful, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, limitations, or error conditions. The phrase 'Get a visual preview' implies safety but leaves ambiguity.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return format. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or 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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description should ideally explain how parameters relate and what 'preview' entails. It covers the return format (SVG image) but lacks usage guidance, behavioral caveats, or any note about the source of the index. This makes it partially complete but with clear gaps in context.

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 input schema already describes all 4 parameters with full coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter relationships, formats, or how to use the index from search results. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 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's function: 'Get a visual preview of a specific Lordicon icon' and specifies the return format as 'an embedded SVG image'. This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like list_families and search_icons, and even from get_embed_code which presumably returns code rather than a preview.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like get_embed_code. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be preferred or how it differs in use cases. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent gets no contextual direction.

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