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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: what the result contains (title, page, .svg link), and that access is free with no API key required. It does not mention pagination or result-count behavior, but the added auth and return-shape detail is substantive.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and content types come first, then the return shape, then the handoff to svg_library_get and the no-key note.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the return-value information (title, page, .svg link). Combined with the auth note and the explicit next-step tool, an agent has everything needed to call this and follow through correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both query and limit are already documented in the schema, including the default of 10 and the 1-30 range. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., query semantics, whether limit caps results), so 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 (Search) and resource (AMNT's free SVG library) plus what content types it covers (icons, logos, illustrations, patterns). It also names the follow-up sibling svg_library_get, so an agent can distinguish this from it and from svg_generate 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: to obtain code, call svg_library_get with the slug. This gives a concrete when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-the-sibling condition. It does not address the other siblings (svg_generate, svg_vectorize, agents_search), so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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