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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the return format: 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' It could mention pagination or error behavior, but given the annotation coverage, this is strong.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then immediately follows with usage context and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place, making it both concise and well-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?

With no output schema, the description must account for return values, and it does: it specifies names, descriptions, schemas, and curated examples. It also provides strong usage context and domain examples. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., zero results), but for a discovery tool with solid annotations, this is nearly 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%, with all six parameters documented (including aliases and defaults). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning; it only reiterates that query is a natural language description, which the schema already states with examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full load.

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 a specific verb+resource structure: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by being the discovery/meta-tool, listing concrete domains it covers (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), and stating it returns tool options. This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when you already know the exact tool), so it misses the 'when-not' clause for a perfect score.

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