l_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the source is open source and requires no login, and gives a corpus size of 2007+ icons, but says nothing about result shape, pagination limits, or whether search matches tags versus names.

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?

Short and front-loaded: action and scope first, then the alternative routing advice. The middle sentence about the Feather fork and icon count is mild filler but still helps an agent recognize the icon source, so it earns marginal keep.

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?

This is a simple keyword search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, and the description covers purpose, auth-free access, and the multi-source alternative. Only the return format remains unstated, a minor gap for such a lightweight tool.

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% and all three parameters (keyword, page, pageSize with max 100) are documented inline, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about keyword syntax, matching behavior, or paging semantics beyond the schema.

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 plus its scope: '[Lucide] Search lucide icons by keyword.' The bracketed source tag and the explicit contrast with multi-source search let an agent distinguish it from the many i_* siblings 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?

Names a concrete alternative and the condition that selects it ('For multi-source search, use i_search_all instead'), and notes 'no login' required. It does not address related Lucide siblings such as l_list_all, l_get_tags, or l_download_svg, so routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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