search_icons

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden for disclosing behavior. It only mentions what is returned, but says nothing about whether this is a safe read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any quirks. This is a significant transparency gap for an unannotated 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and return value. Every word earns its place, with 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?

Even though the schema covers all parameters, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description gives a high-level list of returned fields but does not explain pagination, the meaning of 'indices', or how output is structured. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is minimally sufficient but leaves room for clarification.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description's mention of 'keyword', 'families', and 'styles' loosely aligns with the query, family, and style parameters, but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('Lordicon icons by keyword'), and differentiates from siblings by focusing on search rather than listing families or getting previews/embed codes. It also specifies return types (names, families, styles, indices), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for use with other tools' implies it is a discovery step before using other tools, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus the siblings like list_families or get_icon_preview. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so guidance is only implied.

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