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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing what each result contains — SVG source, an embeddable <script> + <i data-ikon="…"> snippet, and a link to the browser editor with size/color/PNG/ZIP/sprite options — plus the Lucide ISC licensing origin.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remainder is dense, concrete information about matches. It is a single long sentence, but no clause is filler.

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 read-only, closed-world lookup tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-content detail an agent needs to decide whether to call it. The only remaining gap is the undocumented result-count limit.

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 only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates for the query parameter by specifying bilingual search terms and giving sample keywords. However, it never mentions the second parameter (limit, max 30), leaving that constraint undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb and resource — searching the Kódvéna icon library (2000+ SVG icons from the Lucide ISC set) — and the parenthetical detail makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling searches such as search_free_fonts or search_domains.

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?

It states clearly when the tool applies: querying icons by a Hungarian or English keyword, with concrete examples («kosár», «naptár», «telefon»). There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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