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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas, and explicitly states results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' No contradiction with 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 four sentences with a clear structure: purpose, list of use cases, return format, and guidance. It is information-dense and front-loaded, but the long domain list could be slightly trimmed without losing 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?

For a discovery tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return format (names, descriptions, schemas) and the 'ready to call' behavior, which substitutes for an output schema. It lacks explicit pagination or error handling details, but these are likely not critical for a search tool.

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 richly documents each parameter (query, aliases, limit, defaults). The description adds only the 'top-N' concept, which is already implied by the limit parameter. Since the schema does 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 clearly states 'Find tools by describing the data or task' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by listing concrete domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.) and positioning itself as a meta-tool for tool discovery, which no sibling does.

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?

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.' It also hints at when not to use it ('not just one answer'), effectively steering agents toward specific tools when they already know what they need.

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