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

Annotations already establish safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results include top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full schemas, ready to call directly with no second schema lookup. This is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation disclosure that adds value.

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 lengthy due to the domain list, but every sentence contributes: purpose, usage context, return format, and positioning as a first call. The front-loaded opening sentence makes it scannable, and the domain enumeration is genuinely informative even if it adds length.

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 meta-tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent will receive (top-N tools, names, descriptions, schemas, examples) and the intended orchestration pattern ('Call this FIRST'). Combined with rich annotations and full schema coverage, no critical information is missing for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 query and all aliases fully described in the input schema, including the limit parameter. The description's mention of 'top-N' and 'ready to call' adds context but does not clarify individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 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 and resource ('Find tools') and immediately clarifies the use case ('browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist'). It lists concrete domains and states that it returns tool names, descriptions, and full input schemas, distinguishing it clearly from all sibling tools.

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...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' It implies when not to use it ('not just one answer') but does not name specific alternative tools, so it falls short of full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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