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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool returns '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 provides critical details about output format and usage, consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint).

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 two sentences with a bulleted list, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place: first states function, second gives usage guidance and return details. No filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (names, descriptions, schemas with examples), that results are ready to use, and the 'call first' guidance. It could mention ordering or ranking criteria, but is largely complete.

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% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining that the query is natural language and provides examples like 'analyze housing market trends' and 'look up FDA drug approvals.' It also mentions the limit parameter. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 starts with 'Find tools by describing the data or task,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_within or search_structures which search within data rather than discover tools. The specific list of domains and examples reinforce its purpose.

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 says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for:' followed by many domains. It further advises 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer),' giving clear context for when to use it. While it implies when not to use (when you already know the tool), it could be more explicit about alternatives.

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