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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results include 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This clarifies the output format, which is essential since there is no output schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase earns its place. The list of data domains is useful but compact, and the 'ready to call' detail is valuable without being bloated.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining what results contain (names, descriptions, full schemas, curated examples). It also explains the tool's role as a first-step discovery mechanism, covers usage timing, and lists covered domains, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., the 'query' parameter's aliases and examples are in the schema). The mention of 'top-N' and 'curated examples' pertains to output semantics, not parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Find tools by describing the data or task,' a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies this as a discovery/meta-tool. It further distinguishes from siblings by listing concrete domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and stating 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available,' making the purpose unmistakable.

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 when-to-use guidance: '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.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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