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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail about the return format (top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas, ready to call directly) and mentions no second schema lookup is needed, which goes beyond the 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 for a meta-tool that needs to convey both its purpose and its coverage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists supported domains, then explains the return format and usage timing. While the domain list is long, it is concrete and helps the agent decide when to use the tool. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (top-N tools with names, descriptions, full schemas, and examples) and how to use it (call first, ready to call directly). The schema covers the query parameter and aliases, and the description provides enough behavioral context for an agent to invoke it correctly. Fully complete for this tool's complexity.

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 explains all six parameters, including query aliases and limit. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; its mention of 'top-N' refers to the limit parameter but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 goes beyond a tautology by specifying the resource (tools) and the action (discover/browse/search). It distinguishes itself from sibling data tools by explicitly describing its meta-role of returning tool names, descriptions, and schemas.

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 usage context: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This clearly signals when to use the tool versus directly querying a specific data tool.

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