search_symbols

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose genuine matching semantics (substring, across both ids and docstrings), but omits case sensitivity, result limits/pagination, ordering, and what a match returns (a bare id versus a full symbol).

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the matching mechanism is stated immediately after the purpose. It is economical, though the terseness leaves little room for the behavioral detail an unannotated tool needs.

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 one-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least sketch the result shape and limits, since none of the structured fields cover them. It covers what is searched but not what comes back or how many results to expect.

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 0% for the single `term` parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining that `term` is matched as a substring against ids and docstrings, but says nothing about format constraints, minimum length, or escaping/glob behavior.

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 ("Search atlas symbols") and adds the matching mechanism ("by substring over ids and docstrings"), which is more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling tools, which are all relation-navigation (callers_of, callees_of, module_deps) rather than discovery, but never names them 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 substring-over-ids-and-docstrings phrasing hints that this is the lookup/discovery entry point, whereas callers_of/callees_of/module_deps answer relational questions. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention that it is the natural precursor for resolving a symbol before calling the sibling tools.

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