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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results include full input schemas with curated examples, ready to call directly, and 'no second schema lookup needed'—which clarifies the output format and operational convenience.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero wasted words: the first defines the scope and domain coverage, the second explains the output and strategic use. The long list of domains is a set of concrete examples, not filler.

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 description covers purpose, usage context, return format (names, descriptions, full schemas with examples), and operational advice ('call this FIRST'). For a discovery tool with no output schema, it provides all essential details an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

All six parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond reinforcing that query is a natural-language description and mentioning 'top-N' relative to limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 finds tools by describing a data or task, enumerates specific domains, and distinguishes itself as a discovery/entry point among siblings. The verb 'Find' plus the explicit resource ('tools') makes the 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and instructs 'Call this FIRST' for option exploration. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it falls short of the top bar.

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