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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior: returns top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas with curated examples, and notes results are ready to call directly with no second schema lookup. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the core function, the second explains return value and usage context, the third gives a clear priority directive. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values (tool names, descriptions, full input schemas with examples, ready-to-call). It also provides a concrete domain list, usage timing, and the 'call first' guidance. Combined with complete parameter schema and safety annotations, the tool is well-specified enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters (query, q, task, limit, search, description) documented in the schema. The description's 'top-N' hints at the limit parameter and 'describing the data or task' maps to query, but it adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task,' then enumerates the covered domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, FRED data, etc.). It clearly positions itself as a meta-discovery tool distinct from domain-specific siblings, reinforced by 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.'

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 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 and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' It implies when not to use (when you already have a specific tool in mind) but does not name alternative sibling tools.

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