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

Annotations indicate idempotent, read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical behavioral context: '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.' No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and immediately lists use cases. Every sentence adds unique value, including usage context and output format. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value: 'names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples).' It also covers input parameters via examples and aliases. The tool is simple, and the description covers all necessary aspects for correct invocation.

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 examples of valid query strings (e.g., 'look up FDA drug approvals') and explaining that multiple aliases (q, task, search, description) are accepted. It could go further by clarifying that aliases are interchangeable.

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 function: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes itself as a meta-tool for discovering other tools, unlike its siblings (e.g., search_within) which operate on data.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear context for when and why to use it, effectively guiding the agent to use it as a discovery step.

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