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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the returned fields (id, name, component type, instance count, page usage) and the meaning of each health bucket — orphans, unregistered, ghosts — including the consequence ('editing them changes nothing elsewhere', 'edits propagate one way only'). This is exactly the kind of consequence-level detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return shape, then the repair path, then the sequencing hint. Dense with terminology, but each sentence carries distinct information; the health-definition clause is long yet earns its space given no output schema exists.

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 has to describe results itself, and it does — enumerating the fields returned and the three health categories. Combined with the routing to promote_to_symbol and add_symbol_instance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and act on the output.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends its space on scope and return content instead of inventing arguments.

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 ('List the project's SYMBOLS') and immediately defines what a symbol is ('reusable components that stay in sync across every page'), which separates it from list_pages, list_blocks and list_assets. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use before add_symbol_instance to find the symbol id', and points to promote_to_symbol for repairing the health issues it reports. That is clear when-to-use guidance with a named alternative, though it never states a when-not-to-use condition.

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