map_find_symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by noting it operates on a hosted source-free map without requiring checkout access, but it does not cover permissions, rate limits, or return format.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that gets to the verb and resource immediately. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity may be a missed opportunity rather than a structural flaw.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should carry more of the explanatory burden. It omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and result limits, leaving significant gaps for a three-parameter search tool.

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% — parameters have titles only. The description provides no additional meaning for project_id, name, or max_results, leaving the agent without guidance on expected values or formats.

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 ('Find') and resource ('symbols') and scopes it to a 'hosted source-free code map without accessing a customer checkout.' This distinguishes it from checkout-based alternatives, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like find_symbol or lsp_symbols.

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 implied by the phrase 'without accessing a customer checkout' — use this when you lack or want to avoid checkout access. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool routing is provided.

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