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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed,' which informs the agent about the tool's immediate usability. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a list of example domains for clarity. It is relatively concise but could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning. Every sentence earns its place, making it structured and informative.

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 simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples).' This is complete and sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description mentions that 'query' accepts aliases, which is already covered in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description adds minimal additional semantic value, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the tool as a discovery mechanism for finding tools by describing data or task. It lists numerous specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it should be called first to see the option set.

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 guidance: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This clearly states when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, which would strengthen the dimension further.

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