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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns top-N tools with full schemas and examples, and 'each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed'. No contradiction; description supplements annotations well.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers usage scenarios, return format, and invocation directive without superfluous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 having no output schema, the description clearly explains what the tool returns (top-N tools with names, descriptions, full input schemas, curated examples) and notes that results are ready to call. With 6 parameters (mostly aliases) and no nested objects, this coverage is complete for a discovery tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions that query accepts aliases (task, q, description, search) and provides example queries, but these are already documented in the schema. The description does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'find tools' and the resource 'by describing the data or task'. It lists numerous example domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Call this FIRST' when needing to browse the tool set. No ambiguity.

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 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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