Check symbols and kwargs against an installed version

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the response contents: present/missing per symbol, rejected kwargs, deprecation notes, and hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact enumeration of outputs. Two sentences, no filler; only the title repeats some of the same ground.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description still sketches the return shape. For a read-only validation tool with three parameters, nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 only 33%: 'version' and the nested 'path'/'kwargs' fields are documented in the schema, but 'package' and the 'symbols' array carry no description at all. The description reinforces that kwargs are names you intend to pass but adds nothing about the package identifier format or the 100-symbol cap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: batch-checking that symbols and keyword arguments exist in a given package version. The scope (batch, per-symbol) is clear enough to distinguish it from the siblings, but no sibling is named or contrasted.

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 phrase 'you plan to pass' implies a pre-flight validation use case, but the description never says when to choose this over symbol_history, diff_versions, or coverage. Usage must be inferred.

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