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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about 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 clarifies the output structure and direct usability, going beyond the 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: purpose + domain list, return format benefit, and usage timing. No redundant or filler content.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes responsibility for explaining return values, and it does: results include names, descriptions, and full schemas with curated examples, ready to call directly. It also provides usage context ('Call this FIRST'). This is complete for a discovery tool with rich annotations.

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%, with descriptions for query, limit, and all aliases. The description reinforces that query is a natural language task description, but it does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already fully documents parameters.

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 the tool's function: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It uses a specific verb (find) and resource (tools), and the domain list (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) differentiates it from sibling tools like search_articles or deep_research.

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 tells when to use it: '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 gives a clear when-to-use scenario, though it does not name specific alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond the 'not just one answer' hint.

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