codeSymbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description's marginal value is in disclosing the auth requirement (GITHUB_TOKEN) and the retrieval mechanism (code search plus raw file fetch). It also discloses the return payload (signature, code block, reference lines), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the mechanism, then the prerequisite and example. No redundant or filler wording.

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, the description usefully summarizes what is returned and states the auth requirement, and the schema fully covers inputs. Minor gaps remain around rate limits or code-search coverage limits, which would matter for an openWorld remote-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 100%, so all five parameters (including ref, kind, maxResults) are already documented in the schema. The description's example illustrates repo and symbol formats but adds no semantics beyond that, so the 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 specific verb+resource ('Find a symbol declaration and references') scoped to 'a remote GitHub repo', and the method note (GitHub code search + raw files) distinguishes it from siblings like fetchGithubContent and search. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a concrete usage example (repo="fastapi/fastapi", symbol="Depends") and a prerequisite (GITHUB_TOKEN), which gives clear context for invocation. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing to the sibling tools for whole-file retrieval, so it doesn't reach 5.

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