find_crypto_constants

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, closed-world search. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it describes the output row shape (`va section algorithm`) and that results are paged. It does not cover rate limits or empty-result behavior, but for a read-only search tool this is largely sufficient.

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 description is two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose and output format come first, and the usage workflow and alternative follow immediately.

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-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing output shape (`va section algorithm`), paging behavior, and a follow-up workflow (xrefs a hit). An agent has enough information to select and call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so `limit` and `offset` are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that results are 'paged', which is marginal additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 crypto constants and tables. It lists concrete algorithm examples and describes the row format (`va section algorithm`), making the tool's scope and output shape clear. It also distinguishes itself from `strings` by explicitly excluding string searches.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to locate crypto code and then xrefs a hit, and warns not to use it for strings (use `strings` instead). This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names an alternative tool for a likely confusion case.

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