Symbol Signature (free, keyless)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: free shared quota (25 calls/day per client IP, reset 00:00 UTC), over-quota behavior pointing to paid route, and clarification of 'signature' vs 'attestation_signature'. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (WHAT, WHEN, WHEN NOT, COST, OUTPUT, Note) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds relevant information, and the output field list is clearly separated.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description explains key output fields and the critical distinction between 'signature' and 'attestation_signature'. It also includes cost, quota, and sibling-tool distinctions, making it complete for selection and invocation.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description adds slight context (e.g., 'resolved at a pinned version') but not enough to push beyond the baseline for full schemas.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'the exact signature, structured params, docstring summary, and deprecation status for one symbol' with version resolution, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like attester_symbol_exists or attester_version_diff.

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 description gives explicit WHEN guidance ('before writing a call against an API you have not used at this version') and WHEN NOT ('PyPI type annotations are unavailable'), as well as cost/alternative routing. This fully addresses when to use this tool versus others.

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