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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable context: it returns names, descriptions, and full input schemas with curated examples, directly callable without a second lookup. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's output behavior, with no contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and output details. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a meta-tool, the description fully covers what it returns (tool names, descriptions, schemas), when to call it (first, when many tools available), and its key differentiator (no second schema lookup). Combined with rich annotations and schema, it leaves no critical 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, including descriptions and examples for 'query' and aliases. The tool description reinforces the semantic flexibility of the query by mentioning 'describing the data or task' but adds no new parameter-level detail 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Find tools') and lists numerous domains, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as a meta-tool for discovery rather than a domain-specific query tool.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist') and provides directive guidance ('Call this FIRST when you have many tools available'). It does not name specific alternative tools, but the 'not just one answer' qualifier hints at when not to use it, earning a 4.

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