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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral context: it returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly.' This informs the agent about the return format and readiness for subsequent calls.

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 concise for its content: it states purpose, use case, domain list, return format, and a 'call this first' recommendation. It avoids unnecessary words but could be slightly shorter without losing meaning. The front-loading is good (first sentence gives the core action).

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the return format sufficiently: 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)'. It also lists example queries. Since there is no output schema, this explanation is necessary and adequately complete.

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 6 parameters, including aliases for 'query'. The description adds minor value by noting that 'limit' has default 20 and max 50, and that aliases like 'task', 'q', 'search', 'description' are accepted. This is helpful but not essential 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 the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It provides a detailed list of domains (SEC filings, financials, etc.), making the resource scope explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'deep_research' or 'validate_claim' which have different purposes.

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' 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 invoke this tool, including a priority hint relative to other tools.

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