Get one SDK symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully covers the return payload (signature, summary, members) and the matching semantics, but it says nothing about behavior on an unknown name (error vs empty result), whether lookup is read-only, or what 'members' contains for a function versus a type.

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 tight sentences with the payload described first and the matching rules second. Nothing is redundant and no clause could be cut without losing information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, how the key is matched, and how to address members. The only gap is failure behavior for a missing symbol, which is minor at this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: name is matched exactly and case-insensitively, and a nested member can be addressed via the 'Type.Member' syntax. The sdk enum is already fully documented in the schema, so only the name semantics benefit from the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Returns one SDK type or function' — plus what comes back (signature, summary, members). It is clearly a single-symbol lookup rather than a search, which differentiates it in spirit from search_sdk, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the exact, case-insensitive matching rule signals that the caller must already know the symbol name, which in turn implies search_sdk is the right tool when the name is unknown. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to the alternative tool.

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