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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the pricing model and which queries incur charges, which materially affects invocation decisions. It stops short of describing pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters existing.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then cost, then routing. No filler; every sentence changes how an agent would call the tool.

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?

No output schema and 0% parameter description coverage leave return shape and several parameters undocumented. The description covers cost and routing well but omits pagination, the required symbol parameter, and input constraints (file count/size limits).

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 carry the burden. It explains the query parameter's free/paid split, which is real added meaning beyond the bare enum, but says nothing about files, symbol, limit, or offset.

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+resource ('compiler query over supplied JS/TS files') and enumerates the operation set (symbols, callers, callees, function, impact, references, imports, importers). It also positions itself against siblings by declaring it is the generic option and that specialized tools are preferred when intent is clear.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: use this generically, prefer specialized tools when intent is clear, and it is not a repository index. It further splits usage by cost tier, naming exactly which query values are free and which are paid via x402 starting at $0.02.

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