search_symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing ranking behavior ("best match first: exact, prefix, substring...") which the annotations cannot convey. It does not mention result-set bounds (limit default 30, max_tokens truncation) or what the results contain, which matter for a search tool with no output schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence followed by a compact args list; nothing is padded. The args block does useful work (enumerating kind values, explaining task_hint) rather than merely echoing types, so its length is justified.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never indicates what a match looks like or that results may be truncated by max_tokens/limit, which an agent needs to interpret an empty or short result list. For a 6-parameter tool with one-third of parameters undocumented and no return-value guidance, it is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 17% (only `workspace` is described), so the description must compensate; it documents 3 of 6 params (name, kind, task_hint) and helpfully enumerates the `kind` values even though the schema declares no enum. `limit`, `max_tokens` and `workspace` are left entirely to the schema, so the compensation is partial.

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 ("Find symbol definitions by name") and adds the matching strategy (exact, prefix, substring, camelCase/snake_case parts). It does not name the closely related siblings (symbols, inspect_symbol, fast_search, semantic_search), so an agent still has to infer which lookup tool to pick.

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 matching-strategy sentence implicitly frames this as the tool for name-based lookup, and 'best match first' suggests it is the right first stop when a name is known. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of alternatives such as inspect_symbol (for details on a found symbol) or semantic_search (for description-based lookup).

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