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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral details: returns top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples), and each result is ready to call directly without a second schema lookup. No contradiction with 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: purpose first, then domain list, then return format, then usage hint. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. Clear and front-loaded.

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 purpose (discovery among many domains and many sibling tools), the description is complete. It explains what results contain, that they are call-ready, and provides usage context. No output schema needed as return behavior is described sufficiently.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description adds examples ('analyze housing market trends') and mentions limit defaults, but this largely repeats schema info. Baseline 3 for high coverage; description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists many specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_datasets' or 'query' by being a tool discovery mechanism.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This gives clear when-to-use and implies when not to (if you already know the tool).

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