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

Beyond the provided annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns top-N tools with full schemas and curated examples, and notes that each result is 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This gives the agent clear expectations of output format and usage flow.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage context, followed by specific examples. It contains multiple sentences but each adds value (examples, behavior, call-to-action). Could be slightly more concise, but structure is effective.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns (tools with schemas), and how to use results. There is no output schema, but the description suffices. A minor gap: no mention of pagination or sorting, but within acceptable range.

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 clear parameter descriptions (including aliases for query). The description does not add new semantic details beyond re-stating the tool's purpose, which is adequate given high schema coverage. Baseline score 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 starts with a clear verb+resource ('Find tools by describing the data or task') and provides extensive concrete examples (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), which both clarifies purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., ai_visibility_check, deep_research) by positioning it as a first call for browsing the tool set.

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 states when to use ('Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist') and includes a directive to call it first when many tools are available. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, though sibling names are listed in context.

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