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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the corpus size (113 tools) but not that the operation is read-only, that it returns tool definitions/metadata, or what happens with broad vs narrow queries. An output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, zero filler. It is however terse to the point where a second clause on usage would have added value without waste.

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 one-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the core is present, but the truncation in the schema's query description means the description should have compensated with query-shaping guidance and a routing hint against sibling discovery tools. It does neither.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the schema's own description ('What you need, e.g.') is truncated mid-sentence, so neither source explains query syntax or expected granularity.

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 and resource ('Search all 113 data tools') and adds the useful scope note that it covers tools outside the default list. It doesn't differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling search_endpoint, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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 phrase 'including ones not in the default list' implies a usage context (discovery when the visible tool set is insufficient), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of how this relates to run_tool, get_fact, or search_endpoint.

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