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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the response format (names, descriptions, full input schemas with curated examples) and the fact that results are directly callable without a second lookup. It also notes 'Call this FIRST' as a behavioral recommendation. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the agent can expect from the tool.

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 but every part serves a purpose: the domain enumeration helps the agent match its need, the return-value detail avoids a second lookup, and the 'Call this FIRST' guidance is actionable. It front-loads the core purpose and flows logically. The only minor issue is the lengthy domain list, which is acceptable for a discovery tool but could be seen as slightly over-specified.

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 that this is a read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what it does, when to use it, what it returns (schemas included), and a direct-call guarantee. It doesn't need to explain error handling or pagination because the tool is straightforward and the schema covers limit/default. This is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on individual parameters (query, limit, aliases), but it does align with the 'query' parameter by saying 'describing the data or task' and 'top-N' which maps to 'limit'. The schema already documents aliases, default, and max, so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. No deduction or bonus warranted.

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 a specific verb+resource pair ('Find tools') and immediately clarifies scope ('by describing the data or task'). It then enumerates the exact domains covered (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.), making it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or validate_claim. The return behavior ('top-N most relevant tools... ready to call directly') further pins down its purpose.

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 usage 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 tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and implies that if you already know the specific tool, you might skip discovery. No alternative tool is named, but the context is clear.

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