doc_search_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching behavior and the PRO+ plan restriction, but does not state whether this is read-only, what a 'symbol' is, or what the response contains. This is minimal disclosure for a search operation.

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 a single sentence that includes an example and a plan note, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action.

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?

Given the empty schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It lacks parameter details, return format, and differentiation from other search tools, making it incomplete despite the tool's apparent simplicity.

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?

The input schema is empty with additionalProperties:true, and the description does not explain what parameters to pass (e.g., a query string). The example implies a search term but does not name the parameter or provide syntax, leaving the agent with no guidance.

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 performs a fuzzy symbol search with a concrete example ('oaf' -> 'OAuth flow'), indicating a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling search tools like doc_search_text or doc_grep, but the term 'symbol search' provides some differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (doc_search_text, doc_grep, doc_search_paths, etc.). The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or context for selection.

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