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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. Beyond annotations, it discloses return behavior: '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 adds useful context about output shape and efficiency. It doesn't discuss rate limits or auth, but annotations cover the safe-read aspect, so the extra context earns a 4.

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 a compact four sentences. The first sentence states purpose, the second lists relevant domains (somewhat long but useful), the third explains return format, and the fourth gives a usage rule. Every part earns its place, but the domain list could be considered slightly verbose. Still, it is overall efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is a discovery meta-tool with no output schema. The description compensates well by explaining what is returned (tools, descriptions, schemas with examples), how the results are ready to call directly, and when to use it. It provides enough context for the agent to understand its role relative to the many sibling tools. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%: every parameter (query, aliases, limit) has a description, with examples. The description text doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description's mention of aliases is already in the schema. Therefore a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('tools'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly framing it as a discovery/browse mechanism versus data-specific tools like es_tender_search or polymarket_edges. The scope is well-defined with an enumerated list of domains.

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 provides 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 tells the agent when to use this tool and when to consider a more direct tool (implied by 'not just one answer'). It also explains the benefit of skipping a second lookup.

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