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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: returns top-N tools, including names, descriptions, and full input schemas with curated examples, ready to call directly—information not present in annotations. This exceeds the baseline.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary. The long domain list is slightly repetitive but serves as useful discovery context. Every sentence contributes (usage, return value, and timing), and there is no filler. It is appropriately sized for a meta-tool.

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?

The tool is conceptually simple, and the description covers purpose, usage context, and return payload (top-N tools with schemas and examples). With no output schema, the description's explanation of return format is valuable. It omits edge-case behavior like empty results, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all six parameters, including aliases and limits. The description mentions 'top-N' loosely but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 begins with 'Find tools by describing the data or task,' clearly identifying the verb (find) and resource (tools). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set,' and the extensive domain list (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.) makes its scope 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 states 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and instructs 'Call this FIRST' in many-tool scenarios. It also hints at when not to use it ('not just one answer'), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it narrowly misses a 5.

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