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

The description discloses what the tool returns: 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and clarifies the tool's non-mutating discovery behavior. It doesn't explain relevance ranking but that's a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context, return behavior, and a clear 'call first' instruction. The list of domains is lengthy but useful for disambiguation. No filler or redundant metadata; it earns its length.

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 as a discovery meta-tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It fully specifies the return format (names, descriptions, schemas), key behavior (relevance-ranked), and usage timing. The input schema covers parameters, so no critical information is missing.

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 schema already fully documents all 6 parameters, including the required 'query' and its aliases. The description adds no extra parameter insight beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation for high coverage. The examples in the schema enrich the query parameter without needing description text.

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 purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It uses a specific verb (find/discover) and resource (tools), and lists many domains it covers. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools which are domain-specific, while discover_tools is a meta-tool for browsing the whole toolset.

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?

Explicitly states 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 gives clear context and implies when not to use it (when you already know the exact tool), providing strong usage guidance.

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