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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This provides useful behavioral context beyond 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 a single paragraph but front-loads the purpose ('Find tools...'). It efficiently covers usage, examples, and output details. However, it could be broken into more structured sentences or bullet points for even quicker scanning.

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 6 parameters (with 5 aliases) and no output schema, the description explains the output format (top-N tools with schemas) and that results are ready to call. It provides examples and alias details, making it sufficient for a discovery tool. Minor gap: does not explain how the ordering or relevance is determined.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that 'query' accepts natural language and lists aliases (task, q, description, search). It also gives example queries ('look up FDA drug approvals', 'analyze housing market trends') and explains the 'limit' parameter, adding value 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 'Find tools by describing the data or task' and lists numerous example domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).'

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 guidance is provided: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for: ...' and 'Call this FIRST...' This implies when to use it and when not (if you already know the tool). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives but frames the tool's role clearly.

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