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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it returns top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas, and states results are ready to call directly with no second lookup needed. This clarifies the output format and immediate usability, which annotations do not cover.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use, and what it returns. No wasteful filler or repetition of schema information.

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 moderate complexity (6 params, mostly aliases, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: it explains the return value (top-N tools with schemas and examples), the use case, and the distinctive feature of being callable directly. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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%: every parameter including aliases has a description. The description reinforces that 'query' is a natural language description and gives example domains, but it does not add essential information beyond what the schema already provides. The domain list is helpful for forming queries but not critical for understanding parameter syntax.

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 that the tool finds tools by describing a data or task, with a specific verb ('Find tools') and resource (available tools). It also lists domains like SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc., which distinguishes it from siblings that may search data directly. This makes 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 gives explicit guidance on 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)'. It does not name alternatives or give when-not scenarios, but the context is clear and practical.

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