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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) – each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This provides useful behavioral context beyond 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 a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and includes a list of example domains. While informative, the list is somewhat lengthy for a parameter description. However, it remains efficient and every sentence adds value, slightly marred by redundancy in domain enumeration.

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 discovery purpose and the presence of many sibling tools, the description covers what it does, when to use, and what it returns. It lacks mention of behavior when no tools match or error handling, but overall is fairly complete for a search tool.

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 good alias descriptions. The description adds that 'query' should be a 'Natural language description of what you want to do' but does not elaborate on the 'limit' parameter or how results are ranked. The schema already handles parameter meaning, so description adds modest value.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'tools', and lists numerous example domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) to ground the purpose. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools as a discovery/search tool, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 ('browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist') and advises 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available'. This provides clear context, but it does not name specific alternative tools for comparison, leaving a minor gap in guidance.

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