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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, non-mutating profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the return format (top-N tools with names, descriptions, full input schemas, curated examples) and assures that results are ready to call directly without a second schema lookup. This is useful disclosure of behavior not present in 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 concise but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then efficiently provides usage guidance, data domains, return behavior, and a clear call-to-action ('Call this FIRST'). Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a discovery/meta-search tool with moderate complexity. The description fully explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how the results can be used. Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly states the return format (top-N tools with schemas) and that no second lookup is needed. With good annotations and a rich input schema, the description is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 each parameter having a clear description, including aliases and the limit default/max. The description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates that the tool accepts natural language queries. Since the schema already carries the full parameter semantics, the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as a meta-search/discovery tool for locating other tools, not performing the underlying tasks. The extensive list of domains and the explicit 'Call this FIRST' guidance reinforce its unique role.

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 the tool: '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.' It gives clear context for use but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' component for a top score.

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