Find references to a symbol (textual)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses whole-word matching, output format, handling of repeated occurrences, scope limitations, and pagination support. This gives the agent a clear picture of expected behavior.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, output format, limitations, and parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the symbol being searched and lists pathPrefix, limit, and offset, but does not elaborate on their exact semantics. Limit/offset are standard, but pathPrefix is named without detail, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a specific action: 'Whole-word textual search for a symbol' with a specific output format (path:line:col with enclosing function/class). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the textual, not scope-aware nature, which sets it apart from find_definition or search_symbols.

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?

The description provides an implied usage context: it highlights that the search is not scope-aware and may include unrelated identifiers, suggesting it is not for precise reference resolution. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool over others.

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