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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: returns top-N relevant tools, includes full input schemas with curated examples, and results are ready to call directly without a second schema lookup. This goes beyond annotations but does not fully detail pagination or ranking behavior.

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 somewhat long due to the domain list, but each sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, output format, and strategic guidance. The structure is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and the domain list, while extensive, provides quick context for the user. Not maximally concise, but efficient.

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?

For a discovery tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, return value (top-N tools with names, descriptions, schemas), and how to use the results (ready to call directly). It is self-contained and adequate for an agent to know when and how to invoke it.

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 each parameter defined (query, q, task, limit, search, description). The description mentions 'top-N' and 'describing the data or task' but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (find/discover), and the domain list (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) gives concrete scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a meta-tool for discovering other tools, unlike task-specific siblings like deep_research or statuspage_check.

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 states 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).' This gives clear context and implies not to use it when you already know the specific tool or need a direct answer.

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