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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by detailing return behavior: top-N tools with full input schemas and curated examples, and that results are directly callable without a second lookup. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with purpose. The first sentence defines the tool, the second gives usage and domains, the third explains output and strategic use. No filler, each sentence earns its place. The domain list is long but valuable.

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?

For a meta-tool with no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: what it does, when to use, what it returns, and how results are structured (with schemas). It even gives placement guidance ('Call this FIRST'). Missing minor details like limit defaults, but schema covers that. Complete for its complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail; it only says 'describing the data or task,' which aligns with the query parameter but is already covered by schema descriptions. The mention of 'top-N' relates to limit, but again schema covers it.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It clearly distinguishes itself as a meta-tool from siblings (which perform specific analyses) by stating it returns tool suggestions with schemas. The listed domain coverage adds concreteness.

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 says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you already know the exact tool). The 'not just one answer' hint implies alternatives but doesn't name them.

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