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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) and states that each result is ready to call directly with no second schema lookup. No contradiction 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 concise yet comprehensive, around 5-6 sentences. It is front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage context, output format, and usage timing. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what the output contains (top-N tools with schemas), and parameter details. No gaps identified.

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 minimal value beyond schema: it reiterates that query accepts natural language and aliases, and provides examples. The limit parameter details are already in schema. No additional semantic enrichment needed.

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 includes specific examples of use cases (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining it returns top-N relevant tools with full schemas, ready to call. It explicitly says to call this 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).' It lists example queries and domains, indicating when to use. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, but the context is clear enough.

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