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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, full input schemas, and curated examples, all ready to call directly with no second schema lookup. This goes beyond the annotation baseline, though it does not cover rate limits or pagination.

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, then provides a compact list of domains and return behavior. It is about three sentences and every clause adds useful context. The domain list is long but valuable for scoping the tool's coverage.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return format (top-N tools with names, descriptions, full schemas, curated examples, ready to call directly). It also enumerates the domains covered and clarifies the 'call first' behavior. This is sufficient for a meta-tool, though it could mention how to interpret relevance or handle empty 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, documenting 'query' and its aliases (q, task, search, description) plus 'limit'. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; it only indicates the query should be a natural language task description, which the schema already states. 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 and resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task' and clarifies the discovery scope by enumerating domains like SEC filings, FDA drugs, FRED economic data, etc. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by positioning itself as the meta-search/discovery layer rather than a domain-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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: '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).' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke this tool versus going directly to a domain tool.

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