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 valuable context about the return structure (names, descriptions, full input schemas) and the promise that results are 'ready to call directly' with 'no second schema lookup needed', which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 somewhat lengthy due to the enumerated list of data domains, but every sentence contributes information: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and a directive. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the core 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers its behavior, return value, and usage context. It explains that results include full schemas ready to call, which substitutes for an output schema, and the examples in the schema further illustrate usage. Minor gaps exist, like not describing the exact JSON shape of the result, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting the 'query' parameter and all aliases (q, task, search, description) plus 'limit'. The description's mention of 'describing the data or task' aligns with the query parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Find tools by describing the data or task', which clearly identifies the tool's verb and resource. It further differentiates itself from domain-specific sibling tools by positioning itself as a meta-tool for discovery, and the explicit list of supported data domains adds specificity.

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?

It provides explicit usage direction: '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 tells the agent exactly when to invoke it and hints at when not to (when seeking a single answer directly from a domain tool).

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