design_search_symbols

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that this is a non-destructive read and names what comes back (IDs, tags, available styles). It says nothing about ordering, what an empty query returns, or limit semantics beyond the schema's default of 20 — meaningful gaps for a search over a large registry.

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, no filler: capability first, return shape second. Every clause contributes information an agent can act on.

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?

The return-contents sentence partially compensates for the missing output schema, and the facets cover all four parameters. The one real hole is unspecified no-filter behavior (does an empty call page the whole registry?) for a tool where zero parameters are required.

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% with descriptive enum values, so the schema already documents every parameter; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the mild signal that the three facets can be combined ('and/or'), without explaining matching behavior for query or how style/category interact.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Search the symbol registry' with three named facets (keyword, category, style), plus a return-value sentence. It is clearly a search rather than a create/add, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like design_fetch_symbol (ID lookup) or design_list_symbol_categories.

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 'by keyword, category, and/or style' implies the facets are optional and combinable, which the agent must otherwise infer from the all-optional schema. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to design_fetch_symbol or design_list_symbol_categories for the adjacent tasks.

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