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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does more than most: 'Credential: none. Cost: Free.' pre-empts auth and billing questions, and it describes the response shape ('a short list of relevant tools, with an explanation of each'). It does not cover side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only discovery call the remaining gap is minor.

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 and the when-to-use trigger are front-loaded, and the credential/cost facts are terse and scannable. However, the sentence 'find_tool finds the other steps that usually follow; every tool is served by name' partially repeats the earlier 'Usually next: enrol' line and is vaguely worded, adding length without new 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does ('a short list of relevant tools, with an explanation of each'). Combined with the credential and cost disclosures, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though a note on how many results or how to refine a poor match would make it fully complete.

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 both parameters are already documented, including a 13-value lane enum with its own 'or ask for one group instead' help text. The prose adds only the colloquial phrasing of 'your description' for the need param and does not specify expected syntax or length, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it matches a natural-language need to a short list of relevant tools with explanations. As a meta-discovery tool it is trivially distinguishable from every operational sibling (enrol, file_claim, plead, etc.), and 'Find the right tool' front-loads the purpose.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition in the user's own voice ('I know what I want to do, but not which tool to use') and names the typical follow-on step ('Usually next: enrol'). The lane enum plus 'or ask for one group instead' further routes the agent when it already knows the category, so alternatives are covered.

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