Fuzzy symbol name search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool 'reads only the index, never the files' and describes cost/noise characteristics. This is valuable safety/performance transparency, though it doesn't mention prerequisites like repo indexing state.

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 filler. The first sentence states the action and ranking; the second gives usage context and an alternative. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and cost characteristics. It lacks explicit return-format details, but the tool's function is simple enough that an agent can infer what matching symbols look like. The mention of ranking and index-only access adds necessary context.

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 50% (kind and limit are described; query and pathPrefix are not). The description gives a usage example for query ('something like handleAuth') but doesn't expand on pathPrefix or limit behavior, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 opens with 'Find indexed symbols whose name matches a query' – a specific verb+resource – and adds ranking order (exact > prefix > substring > subsequence). This clearly distinguishes it from broader search tools and matches the tool name.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when you half-remember a name' and contrasts with search_code: 'far cheaper and far less noisy than search_code for finding a declaration.' This gives both a clear use case and a named alternative.

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