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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and resource, without mentioning read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or effects on the system.

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?

At five words, the description is too terse and omits critical details. While concise, it sacrifices necessary completeness, making it insufficient for effective agent use.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is drastically insufficient. It does not explain what 'indexed symbols' are, how parameters relate, or what the output contains, leaving the agent with major gaps.

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 only 33% (only repo_name has a description). The tool description does not add meaning for npub, dpop_token, or clarify the relationship between params. It fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists indexed symbols for a service, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like cypher_index_symbol (which likely creates/updates an index) and cypher_symbol_provenance (which retrieves provenance), but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cypher_index_symbol or cypher_symbol_provenance. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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