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

With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context: it returns top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas ready to call, eliminating second lookups. It also notes it should be called first, but doesn't describe internal behavior like ranking methodology or edge cases. This is solid added value 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 is appropriately sized, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a domain list to convey scope. Every sentence contributes value, though the domain enumeration is lengthy. Slightly more concise phrasing could be possible, but it's 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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining return values (top-N tools with names, descriptions, schemas) and when to use it. It doesn't mention error cases or no-match behavior, but those are less critical for a discovery tool. Overall it's complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 detailed descriptions for query and includes aliases and examples. The description itself doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema comprehensively documents all six parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Find tools' with a clear resource ('tools') and explains the function as browsing, searching, or discovering tools for a list of data domains. It distinguishes itself from siblings by instructing to call it FIRST for option discovery, unlike task-specific tools like search_datasets or validate_claim.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available' which clearly guides usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, just implies the discovery scenario, so not a perfect 5.

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