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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns curated results with full schemas and examples, ready to call without a second lookup. This expands on the static annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 the core action, followed by domain examples and output description. While it lists many domains, every sentence adds value. It is well-structured and efficient, though slightly verbose.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns (names, descriptions, schemas with examples, ready to call). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's functionality and output.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning that the query accepts aliases (task, q, description, search) and providing examples of natural language descriptions (e.g., 'look up FDA drug approvals'). This helps the agent understand parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 specific domains and explains that it returns top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas, ready to call. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_articles, which search data, not tools.

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 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies specific tools for specific tasks.

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