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

Annotations already mark it as read-only (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds useful behavioral detail: query returns matching tools with summaries, effects, and parameters; tools returns full input schemas. It also indicates how to invoke discovered tools, which is helpful context beyond 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 front-loads the distinction between everyday and other tools, but the long parenthetical list of areas is somewhat cluttered. The parameter explanations and invocation guidance are useful but could be more tightly structured.

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 discovery meta-tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the output for each parameter mode and how to proceed after discovery. It does not mention limits like maxItems (e.g., 10 tools) or pagination, but those are covered by 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%, but the description goes further by explaining what the query parameter yields (matching tools with summary, effect, and parameters) and what the tools parameter returns (full input schemas). This adds semantic value beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 identifies this as a discovery tool for tools not in the everyday list, and explains what query and tools return. The opening sentence is a bit ambiguous about where tools are 'listed', but the overall purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand it as a tool search.

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 states that no arguments returns every tool by area, and explains how to run a discovered tool via call_read_tool, call_tool, or by name. This gives clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with just calling tools directly.

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