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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it returns top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas with curated examples, and results are ready to call directly without a second schema lookup. This informs the agent about output richness and direct usability, which is not in the 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 several sentences but every part adds value: the task, domain list, return characteristics, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The domain list is long but serves as a quick reference for applicability. No fluff or repetition, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (top-N tools with schemas and examples) and the input behavior (accepts aliases, limit). It also covers when to use it. For a tool-discovery utility with good annotations, this description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the 'query' as a natural-language description and notes it accepts aliases (also in schema). The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema; it reinforces the query parameter's purpose but doesn't provide new syntax details or examples. Thus, a 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It enumerates many supported domains, making the scope explicit. It also distinguishes itself by saying 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available' – differentiating it from sibling tools like search or specific data 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 when to use: '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 also implies when NOT to use it (when you need a single answer). No alternative tools are named, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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