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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it returns top-N relevant tools with full schemas and 'no second schema lookup needed,' and it frames the tool as an initial exploration step. It doesn't mention potential edge cases (e.g., empty results), but the description meaningfully supplements 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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: the first sentence defines the purpose, the second lists use cases and domains, the third explains the return format, and the fourth gives strategic guidance. It's front-loaded and well-structured, though the domain list could be trimmed without losing core meaning.

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 fully explains what the tool returns (top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas) and when to use it. For a meta-tool of moderate complexity, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the result. The sibling context (many tool names) reinforces why this discovery tool is valuable.

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%: every parameter (query, q, task, limit, search, description) has a clear description, including aliases. The description itself doesn't add much parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, though it does offer example queries in the schema and a domain list in the text. Since the schema carries the heavy lifting, a 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on tool discovery rather than data retrieval, and it enumerates the domains covered (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), making the purpose explicit and differentiating it from data-specific tools.

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.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over the many siblings, and implies that if you already know the tool, you should call it directly.

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