Find functions by constant

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, and the description partly repeats those (idempotency=read-only, safety=read-only). It does add non-schema context: phase=observe, cost=medium, requires an active client, produces bounded-candidates, and a recovery hint (inspect tool-schema on failure). That prerequisite and cost disclosure earns credit beyond the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first two sentences, but the remaining content is a boilerplate template block (Phase/cost/idempotency/Requires/Capabilities/Produces/Safety) that partly duplicates the annotations and schema, and the Signature line repeats the input schema. Functional but with avoidable redundancy.

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 full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, and no output schema required to be explained, the description is largely complete; it adds phase, cost, prerequisite, and a failure-recovery pointer. The one soft spot is the vague 'Produces: bounded-candidates' return hint, which does not describe actual output shape.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (defaults, types, constraints). The 'Signature' line merely restates the parameter names/types and adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource: scanning getgc() to find closures whose constants contain a target string/number, plus a use case (locating handlers/hidden logic by magic constants). It distinguishes itself from constant-scanning siblings like find-constants-xref by scoping to closures, but never names those siblings 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?

Gives a motivating use case ('locating handlers and hidden logic by magic constants') which implies when it is useful, but provides no when-not guidance and does not name alternatives such as get-closure-constants or find-constants-xref. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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