Search Material Icons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool searches and returns usage code, but it fails to explain what 'usage code' entails, which frameworks are supported, or whether it is a read-only operation. Details on response format and pagination are absent.

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 sentence, 12 words, that front-loads the core function. No redundant or filler words are present, making it highly concise and appropriately sized.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, the meaning of 'usage code', supported frameworks, or how it differs from get_component_code. The vague 'usage code' claim leaves significant gaps for reliable invocation.

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 only 25%, with only 'query' having a description. The description merely mentions 'filters' and does not explain the meaning of 'limit', 'style', or 'filled'. The schema's names and enums offer partial hints, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 it searches the Material Symbols icon library, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_material_components. However, the added 'get usage code for different frameworks' creates ambiguity about the exact output and its relation to get_component_code.

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 description implies this tool is for searching icons and obtaining usage code, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives like get_component_code or list_material_components. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided.

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