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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns top-N tools with names, descriptions, full input schemas and curated examples, and each result is ready to call directly without a second schema lookup. This is useful context about return behavior and does not contradict 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 three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. The domain list is long but directly helps an agent formulate a query. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by explicitly stating the result format (names, descriptions, full input schemas, curated examples) and that results are directly callable. It covers purpose, usage, and output behavior, making it complete for a tool-discovery tool despite the absence of a structured output schema.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%: every parameter has a description, including the main 'query' parameter and its aliases (q, task, search, description) plus limit constraints. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Find tools by describing the data or task') and immediately frames the tool as the way to browse/discover what tools exist. It distinguishes itself from direct-answer sibling tools by explicitly saying 'Call this FIRST... to see the option set (not just one answer)', which sets it apart as a discovery/orchestration tool rather than a domain-specific lookup.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' plus a prioritized rule 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer)'. It also implies a when-not ('not just one answer') but does not name specific sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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