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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds beyond this by detailing the return format: 'Returns the 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 is rich context that helps the agent understand the behavioral outcome without contradicting 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 well-structured and concise. It front-loads the core purpose and use cases in the first sentence, then provides additional details on return format and when to call it. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 role as a discovery tool with 100% schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to know: purpose, usage guidance, and return format. It doesn't detail ranking or ambiguity handling, but for a tool of this complexity, it is sufficiently complete. A 5 would require more specifics on edge cases.

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%, with all parameters documented. The description adds value by listing the multiple aliases for the query parameter (q, task, search, description) and providing examples. It also explains the limit parameter's default and max. This goes beyond the schema's baseline, making it a 4.

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/discover) and resource (tools). The description also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly positioning it as a discovery tool for browsing available tools, which is distinct from specific research or utility tools like deep_research or validate_gtin.

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 also lists domains where the tool is useful (SEC filings, financials, etc.), helping the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would make it a 5.

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