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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: results include names, descriptions, and full input schemas with curated examples, and are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed' – this saves the agent an extra step. This goes beyond the annotations and is useful for predicting tool 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, domain scope, return format, and usage timing. No filler or redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core verb-phrase in the first sentence.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values: tool names, descriptions, full input schemas with examples, and direct readiness to call. It also covers domain scope and explicit usage timing. For a discovery tool, this is 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%, with all parameters having descriptions, including aliases (q, task, search, description) and limit semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the 'top-N' notion is captured in the limit parameter's schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists concrete domains (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes it from likely siblings like query or search_within by positioning it as a discovery/metadata tool for browsing the available tool set.

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 says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and adds 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides both when-to-use and a when-not-to-use hint, without naming specific alternatives but giving clear context.

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