Search icons

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context, which it does: it discloses the return payload (icon ids, collection license, Icônes URL) and that a labeled PNG contact sheet is returned by default. It does not mention rate limits or result-count behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the resource and matching semantics front-loaded, followed by return contents and the preview opt-out. No filler wording.

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?

With ten fully documented parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description does the needed extra work of describing the return format and default PNG behavior. Minor gaps remain around result pagination and preview payload cost, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all ten parameters are already documented, and the description only reinforces the preview toggle and contact-sheet behavior. It adds little meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('Search icons across Iconify') and names the underlying catalog. It also clarifies the matching semantics ('matches icon names and keywords, not arbitrary visual similarity'), which distinguishes this search tool from sibling lookup tools like get_icon and preview_icons.

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?

It gives clear usage context: search by name/keyword rather than visual similarity, and 'Set preview to false for text only' tells the agent how to opt out of the PNG payload. It stops short of explicitly routing between siblings such as list_collections or get_icon, so no exclusions are stated.

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