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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ('symbols with their canonical ids') and the intended chaining pattern instead of returning full records. It omits ranking/ordering behavior and how partial matches are scored.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action first and the chaining hint second. Nothing here repeats the schema or annotations.

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 3-parameter search tool with an annotation-covered safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies what matters: what it matches on, what comes back, and what to call next. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and whether the match is exact-token or substring.

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 100% and already documents query, limit and version in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description's example keywords restate what the query parameter description already says and add no syntax or interpretation guidance beyond it.

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?

Specific verb ('Find'), specific resource ('IPC symbols'), and the matching mechanism ('title text matches a keyword') are all stated up front, with concrete query examples. It is immediately distinguishable from ipc_lookup, which it explicitly names as the follow-up step.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to ipc_lookup 'on a hit' for full title and validity, which is a clear when-to-use-next rule. It does not say when to skip this tool (e.g. direct lookup when the symbol is already known, or ipc_children for hierarchy), so the exclusion side of the guidance is missing.

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