search_icons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'returns matching icons,' which indicates a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and to the point. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action and resource, the second clarifies the scope. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more informative.

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 complexity of a search tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or parameter usage, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it 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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'flexible query parameters' but doesn't explain the semantics of query, prefix, or limit. The description adds no meaningful information beyond what the bare schema provides, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 through Iconify's icon collection with flexible query parameters.' It specifies the action (search), resource (Iconify's icon collection), and scope (all icon sets or specific set). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_all_icon_sets or get_icon_set, which appear to be retrieval rather than search operations.

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 usage context by mentioning 'flexible query parameters' and the ability to search 'all icon sets or a specific set,' but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_icon_data or get_icon_set. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisite information is included.

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