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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns direct and transitive dependency paths with source evidence and notes the x402 payment cost, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it omits critical behaviors like whether files must be complete or truncated, how symbol matching works, and rate limits or authentication details beyond payment.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and payment context. No wasted words.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and complex behavior (impact analysis), the description is incomplete. It omits parameter explanations, response format details beyond paths, and operational constraints like file limits or symbol matching rules.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no information about the four parameters (files, limit, offset, symbol). It does not explain that files require paths and content, what symbol refers to, or how pagination works.

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 ('Determine') and resource ('what code may be affected by changing a TypeScript or JavaScript symbol'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like find_references or get_importers. The mention of direct and transitive dependency paths further pins down the scope.

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?

Implies usage via 'changing a symbol' but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to alternatives like find_references. An agent must infer the context without guidance.

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