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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas with curated examples, and states that results are ready to call with no second schema lookup needed. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about the response.

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 a bit long but every sentence provides useful information: purpose, use cases, domain examples, return format, and a strong first-use directive. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured to lead the reader through value proposition and usage. Slightly verbose due to the domain list, but not wasteful.

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 complexity as a discovery mechanism and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values (top-N tools with names, descriptions, schemas, examples) and emphasizes direct usability. It does not cover every edge case like pagination or error handling, but for the stated use cases it is sufficiently complete.

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%, with each parameter (query, q, task, limit, search, description) clearly documented, including aliases and defaults. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is expected given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on discovery rather than direct domain queries. The list of covered domains and the promise of ready-to-call results further clarifies its unique role.

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 this tool: '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.' This provides clear context and effectively differentiates it from calling a specific tool directly.

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