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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it returns page URLs and each result page carries downloads and recolouring without an account, which tells the agent the drill-down path is unauthenticated.

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?

Front-loaded and readable, but the third sentence ('free SVG, PNG, DXF and PDF downloads plus recolouring, no account needed') is catalog marketing that does not help an agent invoke or select the tool, so it only partly 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, what comes back (designs with page URLs), and the auth-free drill-down. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or behaviour when nothing matches.

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 both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented with an example and bounds. The description adds only the notion of keyword matching, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Search the InfySVG catalog of free SVG cut files by keyword') and adds what it returns. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with siblings get_design/list_categories, but the keyword-search scope is distinct enough for an agent to pick correctly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by keyword' — the agent can infer it is the entry point for discovery — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like get_design for a specific known design or list_categories for browsing.

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