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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the tool returns top-N results with names, descriptions, and full input schemas including curated examples, and that each result is ready to call directly without a second schema lookup—useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 the main purpose and returns a compact set of high-value details, but the domain list is long (17 items) and the phrasing 'Returns the top-N most relevant tools...' could be tightened. Overall it's appropriately sized for the tool's function, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 simple, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, this description covers the essential ground: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how results are structured. The only minor omission is what happens when no tools match, but that's low-stakes given the intended use case.

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 all six parameters, including multiple aliases for query. The description only loosely maps to the query parameter ('describing the data or task') and the limit ('top-N'), adding no new meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find tools by describing the data or task') and enumerates a broad range of domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), making its discovery function explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling research tools by stating it returns top-N tools with full schemas, ready to call directly, and by positioning itself as the 'first' step when the option set is needed.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...' and instructs 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' It lacks a direct 'when not to use' statement or named alternative tools, but the 'not just one answer' phrase implies you should use direct tools for a single answer.

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