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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, full input schemas, and curated examples, each ready to call directly with no second schema lookup needed. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of the exact output and workflow implications.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The long list of domains is purposeful for a discovery tool, and the remaining sentences cover usage, return behavior, and when to call. It could be slightly tightened, but 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains what results contain (tool names, descriptions, full schemas, examples) and that they are directly callable. Together with annotations for safety and schema for input, the description covers all needed context for an agent to invoke this tool effectively.

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 schema fully documents query and aliases including defaults. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that the query is a natural language task description and that results are top-N. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it 'Find tools by describing the data or task,' with explicit verbs (browse, search, look up, discover) and a defined resource (tools). It lists the covered domains, making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools which are domain-specific operations, not meta-tool discovery.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: '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 clearly distinguishes when to use it versus directly invoking a specific tool.

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