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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these: it returns top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas including curated examples, and states that results are directly callable with no second schema lookup. This is valuable transparency about the return format and readiness, though it doesn't note any rate limits or error behavior.

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, starting with the core purpose, then expanding to use cases, return value details, and a clear call-to-action. Every sentence earns its place; the list of domains is useful for quick orientation. No fluff 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 moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description does enough to explain what results contain (names, descriptions, schemas, examples) and how to act on them. It specifies default and max limits via the schema. It could mention what happens if no tools match, but overall the description solidly covers the essential context for selecting and using the tool.

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?

The input schema fully documents all parameters, including aliases and the limit parameter, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond saying to describe the data or task, which aligns with the query field. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 primary function: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It specifies the resource (tools) and the action (find/discover), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on tool discovery rather than data retrieval. The list of domains and the promise to return schemas further reinforce a specific, well-defined 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and implicitly contrasts with directly calling a specific sibling tool.

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