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 behavioral context by stating that it 'Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and that each result is ready to call directly. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the output format and readiness for direct invocation.

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 structured as two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. The second sentence is long but packs critical information about return value and invocation semantics, as well as a domain list. While the domain list is extensive, it is necessary to convey scope. No words are wasted, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description ably compensates by explaining the return format in detail: names, descriptions, full input schemas with curated examples, and readiness for direct calls. It also explains the 'top-N' behavior and the limit parameter's role. This makes the tool's behavior well-specified despite the absence of an output schema.

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 six parameters fully described in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, mostly mentioning 'top-N' which relates to the limit parameter. The query parameter is described in both the schema and description consistently, but the description does not significantly extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 explicitly enumerates the domains it covers (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as a meta-tool for discovering other tools, unlike the domain-specific sibling tools.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: '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 clearly tells the agent when to use this tool instead of directly calling a domain-specific tool.

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