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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description usefully fills the remaining gap: it discloses the return shape ('matching entries, most relevant first, each with what the docs say, its page and anchor'), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not mention truncation/limit behavior or what happens on no match, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by return behavior and the follow-up tool. The long parenthetical example list is dense but each example illustrates a distinct symbol category, so it earns its 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?

For a lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input categories, ordering of results, and the fields returned, so an agent can call it and interpret the response. Minor gaps remain around result volume and no-match behavior, plus it never contrasts itself with search_docs.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by showing what qualifies as a 'symbol' (decorator, method, option, error code, CLI flag), which adds conceptual meaning beyond the schema's format note ('with or without @, this. or parentheses'). It says nothing about limit or version semantics, but the schema already documents those.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Finds a FrontMCP API by name in the Reference pages') and enumerates the exact symbol categories it resolves (decorator, function/method, option, error code, CLI flag). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_docs (free-text) and get_page (full page retrieval) without needing to open 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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: 'Read more with get_page,' giving a clear next step after a lookup. It also implies usage through the symbol-category examples, but never states when this tool is the wrong choice (e.g., use search_docs for conceptual/keyword queries), so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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