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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not in the annotations: compiler-backed semantic resolution and commercial terms ('Paid via x402 (starting $0.02)'). It omits auth/payment mechanics and any failure behavior when symbol resolution succeeds or fails.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, capability and cost appended in descending priority. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 0% parameter coverage, no output schema, and no explanation of the return shape, ordering, or pagination, an agent cannot confidently form a call beyond passing a file array. Annotations cover safety, and pricing is disclosed, but the absence of any parameter or result semantics for a four-parameter tool leaves a significant gap.

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% across four parameters, so the schema alone gives no meaning for files, symbol, limit, or offset. The description mentions a 'symbol' and 'supplied files' in passing but never clarifies that symbol is the lookup target, how it is qualified, or what limit/offset paginate — and it does not flag that only 'files' is marked required despite symbol being conceptually essential.

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 (find) and resource (semantic references to a TS/JS symbol) plus the mechanism (compiler-backed symbol identity), which meaningfully separates it from textual search. However, it never names or contrasts with the available siblings (analyze_impact, get_importers, get_imports, query_code), so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied: 'Handles renamed imports and re-exports' tells the agent this tool is preferable when name-based matching would fail, and 'across supplied files' hints at the input scope. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like query_code or get_importers.

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