i_download_svg

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the cache-backed retrieval mechanism and the absence of a detail endpoint, but says nothing about authentication, what happens when the ID is no longer cached, or whether the cache expires.

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 and the critical precondition are front-loaded, and the four sentences are dense with useful content. The parenthetical explanation is justified because it explains a nonobvious retrieval constraint, though the phrasing could be tightened slightly.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, and both optional overrides adequately. It omits failure behavior for uncached or expired IDs, which matters given the cache dependency it introduces.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's notes on color overriding fills and size overriding width/height largely restate the schema text, adding little new meaning beyond confirming the ID must come from search.

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, and return format: 'Download an icon as SVG text from iconfont.cn.' The output format (SVG text rather than a file) distinguishes it from a naive reading of the name and from siblings like i_download and l_download_svg.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: the icon MUST have been returned by a recent search call, since there is no per-icon detail endpoint. It also tells the agent to pass an ID from search. It stops short of naming when to choose i_download or l_download_svg instead.

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