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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond these: it discloses that the tool returns top-N most relevant tools with full input schemas and curated examples, and that results are ready to call directly without a second lookup. This contextual behavior (returning multiple candidates, ready-to-call) is not implied by annotations, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 slightly long due to a comprehensive domain list, but every sentence contributes: purpose, usage context, return format, and when to call first. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose. It earns its length without being redundant.

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 (1 required), no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it returns (names, descriptions, schemas, examples), how results are formatted (ready to call directly), and when to prioritize it ('Call this FIRST'). No critical information is missing.

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 six parameters documented, including aliases and an example. The description's mention of 'top-N' aligns with the limit parameter but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema carries the full burden, the 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 specifies the resource (tools) and the action (find/discover), and the domain list distinguishes it from sibling domain-specific tools. It is a meta-tool for discovery, clearly differentiated from tools like polymarket_edges or pipeworx_trending.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This clearly defines when to use the tool and implies the alternative (directly calling a known tool) when a single answer is desired.

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