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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description only mentions the internal implementation function it wraps ('src/lib/symbols.findDefinitions'), which says nothing about behavior an agent needs — whether multiple definitions per repo are returned, whether results include file paths and line spans, or how large repos are handled.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is an implementation detail of marginal value to an agent but costs little space.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, yet says nothing about what a 'definition' result contains (path, line, snippet, count) or any result limits. Combined with two undocumented required parameters, the definition is too thin for reliable invocation.

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 only 33%: 'name' is described as 'Symbol name', but 'owner' and 'repo' have no descriptions in either the schema or the description. The description does not compensate by clarifying required repo/owner scoping (e.g., 'OWNER/REPO' format) or whether name is case-sensitive or fully qualified.

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 concrete verb and object: 'Find definitions of a symbol by name within a repo.' An agent can tell this is a symbol-definition lookup scoped to a repo. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as merjax_search_code or merjax_semantic_search, so it stops 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over merjax_search_code, merjax_semantic_search, or merjax_read_file, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that this is for jumping to definitions rather than free-text search.

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