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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns top-N tools with full schemas and curated examples, and that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This goes beyond the annotation safety profile and explains the response nature.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, when-to-use with domain list, and return behavior. Each sentence earns its place, is front-loaded, and has no filler or redundancy. Extremely efficient for a meta-tool description.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully explains the return value (names, descriptions, full input schemas) and the intended use case. For a tool-discovery tool, this is complete: it covers how it behaves, what it returns, and when to invoke it. No obvious gaps for the agent to select and call it correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with every parameter (including aliases) described. The description does not add new parameter-level details; it only mentions 'top-N' which corresponds to the existing 'limit' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles the semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_* or ask_pipeworx by focusing on discovering tools rather than operating on data. The list of domains further clarifies the intended scope.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: '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 (not just one answer).' This also implies when not to use it (when you already know the specific tool and want a single answer).

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