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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns top-N tools with full input schemas and curated examples, and each result is ready to call directly with no second schema lookup needed. This clarifies the return behavior and workflow impact.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The list of domains is long but useful for qualifying use cases. Return behavior and usage guidance are compactly stated. A slight deduction for the lengthy enumeration, though it serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns (names, descriptions, schemas, examples). Given the tool's meta nature and strong annotations/schema, it is nearly complete. Missing explicit statements about output format, but the description sufficiently implies the result structure.

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%, with descriptions for each parameter including aliases and the limit field. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it does reinforce that the query is a natural language task description via examples. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It explicitly lists the resource (tools) and differentiates from the many sibling data tools by being a meta-tool for discovery. The verb 'Find' and the scope 'discover what tools exist' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...' and instructs to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This tells the agent when to invoke it and implies that for single-answer tasks, other tools may be more appropriate.

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