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 safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return format: top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples), and notes that results are ready to call directly, eliminating a second schema lookup.

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 no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, the second gives usage scenarios with a domain list, and the third explains the return value and when to call first. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is a meta-discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (top-N tools with schemas and examples), how to use it, and when to invoke it. The safety profile is covered by annotations, and parameters are fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical 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% and all parameters, including aliases, are well-documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the natural-language nature of the query and provides examples, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions. 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 starts with 'Find tools by describing the data or task', which clearly states the tool's verb (find) and resource (tools). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the meta-discovery tool, and provides a comprehensive list of supported domains (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.), making its 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 when-to-use guidance: '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 provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the 'FIRST' directive implies it should be used before other tools.

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