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 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, no second schema lookup needed.' This describes output format and readiness beyond annotations, with no contradictions.

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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage and domain list, third describes output, fourth gives behavioral instruction. It is slightly long (5 sentences) but each sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with key information.

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, many aliases, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the discovery purpose, when to call it, what the output contains (schemas and examples), and how parameters work (aliases). Without an output schema, the description adequately covers 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that multiple parameters (q, task, search, description) are aliases for 'query', and provides example queries and use cases. This clarifies the parameter semantics beyond the schema's individual 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 the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It specifies the verb 'find', the resource 'tools', and the method ('by describing the data or task'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by advising 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available,' which sets it apart from specific search or research tools in the sibling list.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for: [domains]' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' It clearly indicates when to use but does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it, though the context implies direct invocation when the tool is already known.

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