search_symbols_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It is a search tool, implying read-only behavior, and mentions max_results limitation. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything or describe any request/response behavior, which is minimal but adequate for a straightforward search tool.

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 extremely concise: a single opening sentence plus a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 search tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. It could mention broader scope (e.g., whether search is full-text or semantic), but the description is sufficient for a basic 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?

The schema properties have no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description provides clear semantics for both parameters: query is described as 'Natural language search query about Symbols/DOMQL' and max_results is described with a range. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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's function: 'Search the Symbols documentation knowledge base for relevant information.' It uses a specific verb (search) and a specific resource (Symbols documentation knowledge base), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cli_reference or audit_component.

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 phrase 'Search the Symbols documentation knowledge base for relevant information' and the query description 'about Symbols/DOMQL' imply the tool is for looking up documentation. It provides clear context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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