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: it returns top-N relevant tools, includes full input schemas with curated examples, and states that results are ready to call directly with no second schema lookup needed.

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 clear separation: what the tool does, the domain scope, and what it returns/usage advice. The long list of domains is scannable and informative for a discovery tool. No filler or redundancy, though the domain list could be slightly condensed.

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 meta-purpose and the large sibling set, the description adequately covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns (tool names, descriptions, schemas, examples). It does not explain edge cases like zero results, but that is not critical for a discovery tool without an output schema.

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 every parameter and alias documented. The description adds little beyond the schema—'top-N' implies the limit parameter, and 'natural language description' repeats what the schema says. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic 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 opens with 'Find tools by describing the data or task,' which clearly identifies the verb (find) and resource (tools). It further distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by explaining that it is the discovery/meta tool, listing specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, FRED data, etc.) that it can search across.

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 states 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and explicitly advises 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not name specific alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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