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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral detail: it returns top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas with curated examples, and that results are ready to call directly without a second schema lookup. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the exact output behavior and pragmatic value.

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 well-structured: the core purpose comes first, followed by usage context, then return behavior, then a directive. The domain list is lengthy but serves a purpose by showing the breadth of searchable areas. It is slightly verbose compared to an ideal two-sentence description, but every sentence adds value and it is easy to scan.

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 carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, which it does clearly ('Returns the top-N most relevant tools... each result is ready to call directly'). It covers all essential aspects: how to invoke it, what domains it covers, what the output looks like, and when to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'query' is a natural language description, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Aliases (q, task, search, description) are documented in the schema, and the description does not clarify when to use one over another, but that is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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', giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the tool as a discovery mechanism from siblings by enumerating the domains it covers (SEC filings, FDA drugs, FRED, etc.) and stating it returns top-N relevant tools. This is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 '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 tells the agent when to invoke it and implies when not to (when a single specific answer is needed). It provides clear context among the many sibling tools.

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