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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which the description supports by describing a search/discovery operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns 'full input schemas (with curated examples)' and 'each result is ready to call directly.' No contradictions.

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 includes examples. It is somewhat verbose with multiple aliases and examples, but remains clear and well-structured. Could be tightened by removing redundancy with schema aliases.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, aliases) and that it has no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return format, when to use it, provides examples, and notes limits. No missing critical information.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing natural language examples for the 'query' parameter and clarifying that q, task, search, description are aliases. It also specifies the limit default and max. This goes slightly beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It provides a long list of example domains (SEC filings, financials, FDA, etc.) and specifies that it returns ready-to-call tool definitions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are specific rather than discovery-oriented.

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 explicitly advises: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This gives clear use-case guidance. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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