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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds beyond that by revealing the output structure: '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 tells the agent what to expect from the call without needing an output schema.

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, followed by a relevant domain list, then the return format and usage timing. Each sentence adds distinct information without redundancy, and the length is justified given the tool's broad scope.

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 description covers what the tool does, when to call it, and what it returns (top-N tools with schemas and examples). Despite no output schema, the return format is explicitly stated, making the tool fully self-contained for an agent to call and use the result.

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% and describes query plus all aliases (q, task, search, description) and limit. The description mainly repeats this by saying 'Find tools by describing the data or task' and noting natural language input. No additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It then enumerates a broad but concrete set of domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, FRED, etc.), making it clear this is a discovery/meta-tool distinct from siblings that perform domain-specific queries.

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 the tool ('Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...') and provides a direct directive: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This differentiates it from answer-focused tools and gives actionable timing guidance.

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