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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral detail: '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.' This goes beyond annotations, but lacks info on potential auth needs or rate limits, though none likely exist.

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 concise at 4-5 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then return value details, and ends with a strategic directive ('Call this FIRST'). Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. It mentions the top-N results and that schemas are included. However, it does not address pagination, sorting, or whether results include relevance scores, which would make it fully 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% and all parameters are described, but the description adds value by explaining the query parameter expects a 'natural language description' and provides examples. It also clarifies that multiple aliases (q, task, search, description) map to query, and specifies default limit of 20. This is helpful context beyond the schema's individual 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It provides specific examples of use cases (SEC filings, financials, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by instructing to call this FIRST when many tools are available. The verb 'discover' and resource 'tools' are specific and unambiguous.

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: '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 by saying 'not just one answer,' but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, which would elevate the score to 5.

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