logo_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses useful behavioral traits beyond basic functionality: it mentions theme support (light/dark), format options with detailed explanations, and return content structure (component name, code, import instructions). It doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context.

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-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, examples, format options, return details) and front-loaded key information. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating format options in different sections), but overall it's efficiently organized with minimal waste.

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's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, formats, and return structure. The main gap is lack of error handling or edge case information, but it's largely complete for effective agent use.

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 some value by explaining format options (TSX, JSX, SVG) and providing query examples, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already documents with its enum and array descriptions.

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 with specific verbs ('Search and return logos') and resources ('logos in specified format'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on logo search functionality, unlike component building or refinement tools.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines with a dedicated 'When to use this tool' section, listing specific scenarios like '/logo' commands or adding missing logos, and includes example queries to illustrate proper invocation contexts.

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