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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value beyond these by detailing the return format: 'Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This provides behavioral insight on output and usability.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, domain list, return format, and a call-to-action. Every sentence earns its place. While slightly longer than minimal, it remains efficient and well-structured.

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 6 parameters (5 aliases for query), no output schema, and 32 sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context: it explains when to use it (first step for discovery), what it returns (tools with schemas), and aliases for query. It does not explain error cases or empty query handling, but the required parameter mitigates that gap.

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 6 parameters described. The description adds context about alias behavior: 'Accepts task, q, description, search as aliases.' It also notes defaults and limits for 'limit' parameter. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 defines the tool's purpose with a specific verb 'Find tools' and resource 'by describing the data or task'. It lists supported domains (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set'.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for: [list]' 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 it (when you already know the exact tool), but does not provide explicit exclusions.

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