search_icons

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full transparency burden. It discloses support for multiple search modes (exact, keyword, fuzzy, semantic), adding value beyond schema. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or result handling.

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 very concise sentences with no fluff. Key information (verb, resource, search modes) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema existence and 4 parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It misses guidance on when to use this vs siblings like get_icon or list_categories, and lacks details on sorting or default behavior. Still functional.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context by specifying matching types, enhancing the query parameter's meaning. Does not detail other parameters beyond schema, but the added value justifies above-baseline score.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search cloud tech icons by query.' It specifies supported matching types (exact ID, keyword, fuzzy, semantic), distinguishing it from siblings like get_icon (single icon) and compare_icons (comparison).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied via search capabilities, but no mention of alternatives like get_icon for exact ID or list_categories for browsing. The description lacks context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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