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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which describe the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail 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 what the agent can expect and the convenience of direct callability, going beyond 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 slightly long due to the enumerated list of example domains, but that list is informative and helps the agent understand what kinds of queries are appropriate. The first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes context about usage and output, so it is appropriately sized.

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 that this is a discovery tool with no output schema, the description fully explains when to use it, what it returns, and why it is useful (direct-callable results). It covers the essential context for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool and what to expect, without any significant gaps.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'top-N' which loosely relates to the limit parameter, but it does not add detailed semantics beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., query aliases, default/max limit). The description does not compensate for any schema gaps since there are none, so 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 specifies the resource (tools) and the action (find/discover), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a meta-tool for exploring the available toolset. The list of example domains reinforces its scope.

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 guidance is provided: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' This gives clear when-to-use direction and even suggests calling it first, which is a strong usage guideline.

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