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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the return format (top-N tools, names, descriptions, full input schemas, curated examples) and the fact that results are ready to call directly with 'no second schema lookup needed.' This goes beyond the annotations to explain observable behavior.

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 core purpose, then gives usage context, and finally explains return behavior. The listing of data domains is somewhat lengthy but adds useful scope information. No unnecessary filler, and each sentence contributes a distinct piece of guidance.

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 role as a meta-search for other tools and the lack of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to use it, and when it is appropriate. It provides enough detail for an agent to invoke it confidently as a first step, including the promised immediate usability of results.

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 every parameter, including aliases, already documented in the schema. The description does not add new semantic meaning to the parameters (e.g., explaining how to form a good query), so it relies on the schema's own definitions. Baseline 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 'Find tools by describing the data or task,' a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself as a meta-tool for browsing or discovering available tools, especially with the instruction to 'Call this FIRST,' setting it apart from sibling 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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' It provides clear context and a strategic placement, though it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools.

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