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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral value by specifying what the tool returns ('names, descriptions, and full input schemas') and the practical benefit ('no second schema lookup needed'). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the structured hints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a useful domain list and return behavior. The domain list is long but serves to define scope, making it worthwhile. It is structured as a single paragraph with logical flow, though slightly verbose with the exhaustive category listing.

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?

The tool is a discovery meta-tool with no output schema, so describing the return value is essential. The description fully covers this: 'Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)'. It also addresses usage context and helpful behavior, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the 'query' parameter, aliases, and limit with clear descriptions. The description adds only the concept of 'top-N' and 'curated examples', but does not explain parameter syntax or values beyond what the schema provides. 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 opens with a specific verb 'Find' and clearly identifies the resource ('tools') and the action ('describing the data or task'). It also lists concrete domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings by framing it as a meta-tool that discovers other tools rather than a task-specific tool.

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist'), and gives a strong directive to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer)'. This implicitly excludes using it when you already know the specific tool, providing clear when/when-not guidance.

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