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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results include 'full input schemas (with curated examples)' and are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed,' which provides practical behavioral insight beyond 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 relatively concise given the information it conveys. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured to list examples. Could be slightly shorter, but every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return value: 'names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly.' It also covers when to use it, making it contextually 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%. The description explains the query parameter and its aliases, and implies a limit via 'top-N,' but does not detail the limit parameter. This meets baseline expectations but adds marginal value 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 lists specific domains (SEC filings, financials, etc.) and explains it returns top-N tools with schemas, ready to call. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_within or deep_research.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set.' Provides usage context with examples. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is clear and contextually complete.

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