Search Hugeicons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-ended nature are covered. The description usefully adds that the return value is icon names for get_icon (important since there is no output schema), but says nothing about result metadata, ranking, or what happens at the limit boundary.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the actionable output. Zero wasted language.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with existing annotations, this covers the essential behavior and downstream usage. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained limit parameter, which is a minor omission given its self-describing default and range in the schema.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying that the query matches name, tag, or category — meaning beyond the schema's 'what the icon should show' phrasing. However, the limit parameter (max 50, default 15) is never mentioned, so the description does not cover the undocumented half.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find Hugeicons') plus the search facets ('by name, tag or category'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_icon by declaring it produces names to pass there. An agent can tell it apart from get_icon/list_styles without opening a schema.

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?

'Returns names to pass to get_icon' gives clear context for the intended two-step search-then-fetch workflow. It does not state when-not to use it or contrast with list_styles/compare_styles, keeping it just short of full exclusion guidance.

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