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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: cost/latency (~2-4s, ~3-5k tokens), the single-call answer+citations behavior, the scope:all restriction that rejects repository, and the early-stop sufficient_to_answer signal. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose and cost warning come first, followed by scoping rules and the stopping condition. It avoids fluff and every sentence conveys decision-relevant information.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to select and invoke it correctly: what it returns, when to use it, when to avoid it, how scoping works, and when to stop. The remaining parameter details are fully documented in the schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that scope:all rejects repository, that omitting repositoryIds spans all repos, and that commitSha pins reads to a revision. Some parameter details are left to the schema, but that is appropriate given its full coverage.

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 states a specific purpose: 'Synthesis Q&A for behavior/architecture questions' with 'answer + citations in one call'. It also differentiates itself from lighter siblings by flagging itself as HEAVY and explicitly naming context, find_node, and locate as alternatives an agent should prefer when they suffice.

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 an explicit routing rule: prefer cheaper tools when adequate and stop making further tool calls once sufficient_to_answer=true. It also clarifies when to use scope 'repo' versus 'all', how repositoryIds narrows cross-repo scope, and that 'all' rejects repository.

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