get_embed_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the high-level function and does not mention any side effects (none likely), permissions, or specifics about the output (e.g., whether it is a snippet or full HTML document). The description simply restates the action without deeper context.

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 description is a single sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the core action and formats. It is highly concise and contains no fluff, effectively capturing the tool's purpose.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the workflow context (e.g., that family, style, and index come from previous search results) or what the returned embed code looks like. This makes it viable but lacking depth for a tool with this many parameters.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'index' comes from search results), but the schema itself covers that detail.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Generate ready-to-use embed code') and the resource ('Lordicon icon'), with specific output formats ('HTML, React, or web component format'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_families, search_icons, and get_icon_preview, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after searching for an icon, nor does it exclude any scenarios. The sibling tool names imply a workflow, but the description itself does not connect to them.

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