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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent) by explaining the return structure: 'Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This tells the agent what to expect from the output, though it does not discuss edge cases or limits.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second details the return behavior, and the third gives usage timing. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids redundant filler, despite the moderately long list of domains which is informative.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by clearly explaining what is returned (top-N tools with schemas and examples) and when to use it. The parameter structure is simple and fully covered by the schema, so no further elaboration is needed. The description is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's reference to 'top-N' aligns with the limit parameter's existing description, adding no extra parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Find tools by describing the data or task,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It further distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as a discovery tool for a broad set of domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and explicitly says to call it FIRST to see the option set, not just one answer.

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?

It provides explicit use cases ('Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...') and when to invoke it ('Call this FIRST when you have many tools available'). It does not name a specific alternative tool for narrow lookups, but the phrase 'not just one answer' implies a distinction.

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