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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds rich behavioral detail: returns top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas with curated examples, ready to call directly. No contradiction with annotations. Fully transparent about output behavior and usage context.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose statement, followed by usage guidance and behavioral details. It is 7 sentences long, each earning its place, though the list of data sources could be slightly more concise without losing meaning.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly explains what is returned (tool names, descriptions, schemas, examples). It provides comprehensive context for a discovery tool with 6 parameters, all documented, and gives explicit calling guidance. No gaps.

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 schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds context by listing example data domains and mentioning aliases (task, q, description, search), but this adds only marginal value over the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3.

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 states 'Find tools by describing the data or task' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., search_within, bet_research) by being the meta-tool for discovering other tools, not for directly querying 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 says 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' Provides context for when to use (browse, search, discover) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though the sibling list implies alternatives for specific tasks.

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