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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns the top-N most relevant tools with full input schemas and curated examples, ready to call directly. This goes beyond the annotations and provides safety and efficiency context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidance. It is fairly concise given the amount of information packed in, though it could be slightly tighter. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is logical.

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 no output schema, the description comprehensively explains what the tool returns (tools with names, descriptions, and schemas). It covers the main use case, lists example domains, and clarifies that results are ready to call directly. The description is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it mentions 'query' and 'limit' implicitly but does not explain each parameter in detail. The included examples are helpful but not enough to raise the score.

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: to find/discover tools by describing the data or task. It lists many specific domains (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself by instructing to 'Call this FIRST' when many tools are available, differentiating it from siblings that perform specific tasks.

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 clear usage context: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or list alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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