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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: returns top-N results, includes full input schemas with curated examples, and each result is 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed'. This is information beyond annotations and helps set expectations.

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 then expands into usage and return behavior. The long domain list is somewhat repetitive with schema examples but still serves as an illustrative guide. Each sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers what results look like (top-N, names, descriptions, schemas). It also gives a clear 'call first' directive. The only minor gap is not explicitly noting that results are actual tools that can be called, but the 'ready to call directly' line covers that.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond listing example domains, which are also present in the schema examples. It does not explain the aliases or limit parameter, but the schema already does. Thus, no significant added value.

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 clear verb+resource pair ('Find tools') and immediately distinguishes itself as a meta-tool for discovering other tools. It lists specific data domains and explicitly contrasts with 'not just one answer', separating it from sibling tools that answer specific queries.

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 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'. This clearly states when to use and implies when not to use (when you need a specific answer from a known tool).

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