search_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it returns matching names and count but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, fuzzy vs exact matching, result limits, or whether it searches only names or also descriptions. These gaps hinder an agent's ability to predict search behavior.

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: two sentences and a structured args/returns block. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return type. It could mention search behavior details (exact vs fuzzy) but is largely complete for its complexity.

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 single 'query' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description compensates by providing concrete examples ('star', 'circle', etc.), which adds meaningful usage guidance beyond the schema title.

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 searches for SF Symbol names by name or keyword, which is a specific verb and resource. The sibling tools (export_symbol, get_symbol_info, list_symbols) have distinct purposes, so this tool is well-differentiated.

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 implies usage for finding symbols by keyword but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_symbols or get_symbol_info. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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