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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the return format: 'Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' It does not detail edge cases like no results, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second enumerates supported domains, the third explains the return value, and the fourth gives strategic usage advice. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it both concise and information-dense.

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 adequately explains what the tool returns (top-N tools with schemas and examples) and when to use it. It also clarifies that it is a discovery tool intended for exploring available options, which is complete context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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%, with all parameters (query, limit, and aliases) already described in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it simply repeats the alias handling already present. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra 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 starts with 'Find tools by describing the data or task,' which clearly identifies the verb (find) and resource (tools). It goes beyond the title by explaining the search mechanism and explicitly lists many domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), distinguishing it from the sibling tools which are specific to individual data sources.

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 states exactly when to use the tool: '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 provides clear context and contrasts with using a specific tool for a single answer, effectively guiding the agent.

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