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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable information: it returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and notes each result is 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This goes beyond annotations by explaining output format and reusability.

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. It is somewhat dense with examples and domain listings, but every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but it remains informative and structured clearly for an agent.

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 has no output schema, the description compensates by explaining that it returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples).' It covers the limit parameter implicitly and explains the return format. For a discovery tool with 6 parameters and full schema coverage, this is fairly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions that the query parameter accepts natural language and gives examples like 'analyze housing market trends,' but these are already present in the schema's examples. The description does not add significant new meaning or usage nuances for the parameters, so it stays at baseline.

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 clearly states the verb ('Find tools') and resource ('tools by describing the data or task'), and lists specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.). It differentiates itself from sibling tools by advising 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set.' This is a specific, valuable use case that sets it apart from other tools.

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 says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for:' followed by a comprehensive list of topics. It also tells the agent to 'Call this FIRST' when exploring options. While it doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives, it provides clear contextual guidance for when to use this tool over others.

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