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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are 'top-N most relevant' and 'each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' No contradictions with 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 succinct, with only a few sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('Find tools by describing the data or task') and efficiently packs domain examples, return structure, and usage guidance without unnecessary verbiage.

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 tool's discovery role, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns (names, descriptions, full input schemas with curated examples), and that results are ready to call. No output schema is provided, but the description adequately describes the return format.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining that 'query' accepts aliases (task, q, description, search) and provides concrete examples ('look up FDA drug approvals', 'analyze housing market trends'). This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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,' with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('tools'). It lists numerous example domains, making the purpose unambiguous. This tool is distinct from its siblings, which are specialized tools, as it serves as a discovery gateway.

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 advises to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the role clear.

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