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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, full schemas, and curated examples, each ready to call directly. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying output format and call readiness. No contradiction.

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 concise: a single paragraph that front-loads the main action ('Find tools by describing the data or task'). It efficiently covers purpose, usage guidance, and output details without unnecessary repetition. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for examples), but it's clear and economical.

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 meta-nature and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool returns (tool names, descriptions, schemas, examples) and when to use it. Parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description covers the core behavior and boundaries. No major gaps remain.

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 reinforces that 'query' is a natural language description and provides examples (e.g., 'analyze housing market trends') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The schema already explains alias parameters and limit. Minimal extra value from description itself.

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 concrete examples of domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and specifies that it returns top-N relevant tools with full schemas, ready to call. This distinctively positions it as a meta-tool for tool discovery, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' or 'search_destiny_player.'

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 instructs: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the directive to use it first implies it's a starting point before selecting a specific tool. This is strong context for the AI agent.

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