Search open-licensed icons

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 clearly discloses that the index is KEYWORD-BASED, NOT SEMANTIC, and warns that abstract phrases will fail, plus a retry recommendation. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then immediately follows with critical operational guidance. All sentences are purposeful and concise, with no redundant filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, how to query, and what it returns (SVG download links). However, it could be more explicit about the exact response structure (e.g., array of objects with a 'url' field), which would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of ideal keywords ('rocket', 'cart', 'bell') and contrasting them with abstract phrases ('fast deployment'), enriching the 'keywords' parameter semantics beyond the schema's terse description.

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 'Search 300,000+ open-source, commercially-usable icons and return direct SVG download links' with a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource (icons), and a concrete result type (direct SVG links). This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and differentiates it even without siblings.

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 usage guidance: 'You must translate the user's description into 1-5 concrete English icon keywords yourself' and advises preferring concrete nouns over abstract phrases, which return zero results. It also gives a retry strategy for empty searches, making the intended invocation clear.

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