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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results include 'full input schemas (with curated examples)' and that each result is 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed' — valuable behavioral context beyond 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and domain list. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value: purpose, domains, return details, usage guidance. It could be more concise but remains efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description adequately covers return content (names, descriptions, schemas). It also covers usage context ('Call this FIRST'), parameter meaning, and examples. For a discovery tool, this is complete.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter (including aliases). The description reinforces usage by providing example queries and explaining the query parameter's role as 'Natural language description', adding value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool finds tools by describing data or task, and lists many specific domains (SEC filings, financials, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are specific-purpose tools, while discover_tools is for browsing/selection.

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 instruction 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set' provides clear guidance on when to use. It implies alternatives by stating 'not just one answer', but doesn't explicitly list when not to use.

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