logo_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains return formats, themes, and result contents, but lacks information on error behavior, what happens if a logo isn't found, or any side effects. The mention of 'category filtering' is vague and not backed by schema parameters, adding confusion.

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-organized with clear sections for usage triggers, examples, format options, and result contents. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan. No unnecessary 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?

For a 2-parameter search tool, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and results thoroughly. However, it omits error handling, any rate limits, and the meaning of 'category filtering' is not explained or reflected in the schema, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: format options are explicitly defined (TSX/JSX/SVG with explanations), and queries are illustrated with multiple example styles (single, multiple, brand-specific, command-style, request-style). This goes well beyond the basic schema descriptions and greatly aids correct usage.

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 purpose: search and return logos in specified formats. It distinguishes itself from sibling component tools by focusing specifically on logo retrieval with format options, multiple search support, and category filtering.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers (e.g., '/logo' command, adding a company logo not in the local project) and example query styles. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or direct alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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