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

Goes well beyond the annotations: signatures are generated from the package's built .d.ts, a name lookup is always the complete declaration, a query returns a one-line summary plus signature with the body collapsed, and `full: true` overrides that. This discloses result-shaping behavior the readOnly/idempotent hints cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the parameter-mode guidance in one dense paragraph with no filler. Slightly long, but nearly every clause carries distinct information (index mode, collapsing, full override), so the size is largely earned.

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 no output schema, the description still explains the three return shapes (index of names, full declaration, summarized-plus-signature) and how to expand them. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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, but the description adds interaction logic beyond the schema: name vs query vs omit semantics, and that `full` applies only in query mode and overrides the default collapsing. It meaningfully disambiguates how the parameters combine.

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 (Get) and resource (the exact TypeScript declaration of any exported @nifrajs/* symbol) and enumerates the symbol kinds covered. The phrase 'returns the complete declaration rather than prose' explicitly distinguishes it from prose-oriented siblings like nifra_docs, letting an agent choose without opening 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?

Gives clear mode selection: pass `name` for an exact symbol, `query` to search by keyword, omit both for the per-package index. This covers when-to-use each mode well, though it doesn't name sibling alternatives (e.g. when to reach for nifra_docs instead), so no explicit exclusion guidance.

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