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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a proactive-checking policy, but does not describe what kind of response or tool-registration behavior to expect; annotations carry most of the transparency burden.

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 one front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then the condition, with no filler. The 'even if existing tools could work as a fallback' clause earns its place by preventing premature fallback to existing tools.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter discovery tool with safety covered by annotations, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. It misses a concrete example of an appropriate context value, but the schema's explanation fills most of that gap.

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% and the single 'context' parameter is already described in the input schema as a goal plus the kind of tool needed. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Check for' and identifies the resource as 'additional tools', so the core purpose is clear. It is also implicitly distinguished from the mentoring-focused sibling tools by being a meta-utility for tool discovery, though 'additional tools' remains slightly generic.

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 trigger condition: use it whenever the task might benefit from specialized capabilities, and even says existing tools can still be a fallback. This removes ambiguity about whether to try generic approaches first, which is the main usage question for this tool.

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