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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. Description adds that each result includes full input schemas with curated examples and is ready to call directly, no second lookup needed. This goes beyond annotations by explaining output format and usability.

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?

Description is moderately sized and front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently packs domain list and output details. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; could be tightened without loss.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately explains the return format (tools with names, descriptions, schemas) and use case. It fills gaps left by missing output schema, making it complete for a discovery 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description does not add new meaning beyond listing aliases (task, q, description, search) and stating that `limit` defaults to 20. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Find tools by describing the data or task' and lists numerous domains (SEC filings, FDA, etc.), clearly distinguishing this meta-tool from siblings that perform specific tasks. It explicitly states the tool returns top-N tools with schemas ready to call, making its purpose unmistakable.

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: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for: ...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke and how it fits in the workflow.

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