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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples), and results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This describes return behavior meaningfully.

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?

Four sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose ('Find tools by describing the data or task'). The long domain list is arguably verbose but informative, and every sentence contributes to understanding when and how to use the tool. No redundant content.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned (top-N tools with names, descriptions, schemas) and the intended use case. It addresses the core needs of an agent: what it does, when to use it, and what to expect. Minor omissions like relevance ordering or edge cases don't detract significantly.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions and aliases, giving high coverage. The description adds a wide list of example topic areas (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) that help formulate queries, but it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a meta-tool discovery service, explicitly listing the types of data/tasks it covers and noting it returns full schemas, making it unique among search-oriented siblings.

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 usage context: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and a strong directive 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This implies when not to use it (when you have one specific answer in mind), though it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly.

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