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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns top-N tools with full input schemas and curated examples, ready to call directly without a second lookup. It also advises calling this tool first, which goes beyond the 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a helpful but somewhat lengthy list of domains and then explains output and usage priority. Each sentence contributes, but the domain list could be trimmed without losing much value, so a 4 is warranted.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return format (names, descriptions, full input schemas, curated examples), the use case, and the recommended placement in the tool selection flow. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit description of the result.

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 clear descriptions for query, q, task, limit, search, and description. The tool description adds some context about 'top-N' and natural language queries, but it does not significantly extend the parameter meanings. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the enumerated domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) distinguish it from sibling domain-specific tools. This is a meta-tool for discovery, which is immediately evident.

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 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' It implies when not to use it ('not just one answer') but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a when-not list, so it falls short of a 5.

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