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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that results are ready to call directly with no second schema lookup, and provides details on output (top-N tools with schemas and examples). No contradictions.

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, front-loading purpose and usage. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by removing redundant mentions of domains. It effectively uses two clear sentences.

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?

For a discovery tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains the output format (tool names, descriptions, schemas) and usage scenarios. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but is sufficient for typical use.

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 descriptions for each parameter. The description adds that 'query' accepts multiple aliases and gives natural language examples. However, it does not explain the ranking logic for 'top-N' beyond the limit parameter.

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: finding tools by describing data or task. It lists specific domains and explains that it returns tool names, descriptions, and full input schemas. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, many of which are specialized for specific tasks.

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 when to use this tool: when browsing, searching, or needing to discover tools. It specifies 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set', providing clear usage context.

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