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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, ensuring safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: it returns top-N relevant tools with schemas and curated examples, ready to call directly, and clarifies it is a discovery tool with no side effects. No contradictions.

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: it starts with the core purpose, then gives usage guidance, then details return values, and ends with a usage instruction. It is slightly verbose with the domain list but front-loaded enough for quick understanding. Every sentence adds value.

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 6 parameters (mostly aliases) and no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns (tool names, descriptions, schemas with examples) and how to use it. It covers usage, return format, and behavioral guarantees through annotations. No missing context for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 description (e.g., query: 'Natural language description...'). The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema; it only re-emphasizes the usage context. 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 clearly states 'Find tools by describing the data or task' and lists specific domains (SEC filings, financials, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing its role as a discovery tool that returns ready-to-call tool definitions, explicitly instructing to call it FIRST when exploring available options.

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 broad list of domains, and instructs to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set'. This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.

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