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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results include 'full input schemas (with curated examples)' and are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed,' which explains the output behavior and reduces uncertainty for the agent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, domain coverage in the second, return behavior in the third, and usage guidance in the fourth. No wasted words; the domain list is relevant and informative.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (names, descriptions, schemas, curated examples) and how to invoke it. It is complete for a read-only discovery tool with clear annotations and simple parameters.

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% (every parameter including aliases has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the query is a natural-language description but adds no new parameter-level semantic detail beyond the schema. The mention of 'top-N' relates to the limit parameter but is already described in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It also enumerates the covered domains and explicitly describes the return value (top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform direct lookups or analysis.

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 provides clear context on when to use: '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 does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the 'FIRST' guidance implies priority over other tools.

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