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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: it returns names, descriptions, and full input schemas with curated examples, and says no second schema lookup is needed. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only discovery tool the added return-format context is valuable.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: defining the core purpose, listing supported domains, and explaining the return value with usage positioning. The domain list is somewhat lengthy but serves the tool's discovery function. It is front-loaded with the most important information, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 explicitly states what the tool returns (top-N tools, names, descriptions, schemas) and that results are directly callable. It also gives usage context (call first when many tools available). With 100% parameter schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is complete and self-sufficient.

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%, and the schema already explains the 'query' parameter as a natural language description and documents all aliases (q, task, search, description) and the 'limit' parameter. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides; it simply reinforces that queries describe data or tasks. 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 'Find tools by describing the data or task', which clearly states the verb (find), the resource (tools), and the mechanism (describing data/task). It lists many domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), making the tool's scope concrete. It is clearly distinct from siblings like deep_research or entity_profile because it is a meta-tool for discovering other tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' — a clear when-to-use. It also states 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer)', which provides both a strong trigger and an implicit when-not (avoid if you need a single direct answer). It even clarifies that returned tools are ready to call directly, supporting the workflow.

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