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

Annotations already declare the tool safe (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context about behavior: it returns top-N tools with names, descriptions, and schemas, and that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This goes beyond the safety annotations to clarify the output and the meta-nature of the call.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, example use cases, and call-first guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses bullet-like enumeration efficiently. Slightly long due to the domain list, but every part earns its place.

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 the tool's meta-purpose and the rich sibling set, the description covers the essential context: purpose, when to use, result content, and precedence. There is no output schema, but the description clearly states that results include names, descriptions, full schemas, and examples, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by listing example queries ('analyze housing market trends', 'look up FDA drug approvals') and explaining that the query accepts multiple aliases (task, q, description, search), which reinforces the parameter semantics without redundancy.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the meta-tool for discovery, listing covered domains and explicitly noting it returns ready-to-call tools with full schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use 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 also implies when not to use it (when you already know the tool or need a single answer), covering the alternatives.

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