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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not burdened with that base transparency. However, the description adds important nuance: results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed', which informs the agent of immediate usability and efficiency.

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?

Description is moderately long but well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then enumerates example domains, then explains return value, then gives usage advice. Each sentence adds information. Could slightly trim the list of domains, but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description compensates by fully explaining what the tool returns: 'names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly'. For a discovery tool, this is sufficient context for the agent to understand the response.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by providing examples of natural language queries ('look up FDA drug approvals') and noting that multiple aliases (q, task, search, description) are accepted. This helps the agent understand the flexibility of the query parameter.

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?

Description starts with 'Find tools by describing the data or task' – a specific verb and resource. It then enumerates domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and explains the return value (top-N tools with names, descriptions, schemas). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that are specific-domain actions.

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?

Explicitly states '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 provides clear usage context and sequencing advice. Does not explicitly say when not to use, but the guidance is strong enough.

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