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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and states results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.'

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 efficiently structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by examples, return value specifics, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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, 1 required, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return format. No gaps are apparent.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces that 'query' is the main parameter and accepts aliases, but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides specific examples of searchable domains (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the discovery tool for browsing the toolset.

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 explicitly advises: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear usage context. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the instruction to use it first implies when not to use it.

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