onde

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: multiple definitions are shown separately and uncertain usages are labeled INFERRED, which tells the agent how to interpret output reliability.

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?

Three tight sentences with purpose front-loaded, then accepted input forms, then output behavior. No filler. Could be marginally shorter but every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be explained, and the description covers purpose, accepted inputs, and result interpretation. For a one-parameter read-only query this is nearly complete, with only the sibling-routing guidance 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 0% (the single 'simbolo' param has no schema description), so the description must carry the burden. It does so by enumerating accepted forms: a name, a partial name, file::Class.method, or a graph-returned ID, substantially clarifying an otherwise opaque string input.

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+resource: it locates where a symbol is defined and lists its usages, aliases and local calls. This is a clear find-usages/locate-definition tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like 'relacionados' or 'impacto', which also deal with symbol relationships, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 explains what inputs are accepted but never says when to reach for this tool over siblings such as 'relacionados', 'impacto' or 'consultar_grafo'. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving selection between graph-query siblings to inference.

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