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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: no auth/API key required, free of cost, and the licensing context for the returned assets. However it says nothing about rate limits, result pagination, or behavior when no match is found, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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?

A compact two-sentence description that front-loads the tool's purpose and then the practical traits (free, no key, return contents). Every sentence carries information, with only minor redundancy in restating 'free'.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates what is returned (titles, page links, direct .svg links), and no annotations exist to cover safety or auth. For a read-only search tool this is nearly complete, missing only failure/empty-result behavior.

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 the query example and the limit default are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 and resource ('Search AMNT's free SVG library') and enumerates the asset types covered, which is precise enough for an agent to know what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like svg_library_get or agents_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage ('free, no API key') but never states when to choose this over svg_generate or svg_library_get, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. An agent must infer the routing from the name and sibling list alone.

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