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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction there. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: that `name` lookups return complete declarations, query results collapse oversized bodies, and that a single match can be tens of thousands of characters. It clearly discloses the return shape and format without contradicting annotations.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place - it packs purpose, mode selection, format guarantees, and an anti-path (don't read node_modules) into a tight block. Front-loaded with the core promise before diving into mode details. Zero waste.

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?

For a read-only lookup tool with no output schema, 100% covered params, and zero required parameters, this description is fully complete. It explains return formats for each mode, size/performance caveats, defaults, and boundary behaviors - nothing is left ambiguous for someone looking up type declarations.

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% and the schema descriptions are already detailed, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: the relationship between name/query/full modes, the collapse behavior, and the default limit semantics. This elevates it above the baseline, though the schema already handles most of the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' plus explicit resource (TypeScript declarations of @nifrajs/* symbols) makes the purpose unmistakable, naming the exact kind of output (interface, type, class, function, const). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing this is 'THE SOURCE OF TRUTH' for types vs docs/examples/learn, and even names what NOT to do (read node_modules .d.ts).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use instruction ('do NOT read node_modules...call this instead'), clear mode distinctions (name for exact, query for search, omit both for index), and when to override with full:true. This is exemplary guidance on invocation decisions.

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