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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns top-N results with full input schemas and curated examples, and each result is ready to call directly without a second lookup. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise—a single paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists use cases, return format, and usage timing. Every sentence adds value.

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 (discovery with multiple parameters and rich return), the description is complete: it explains the type of input (natural language), the output format (top-N tools with schemas), and the call strategy (use first). No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know.

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% (6 parameters fully described). The description does not add significant new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema itself clearly documents the query aliases and limit. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not detract.

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 starts with a clear verb-object pair ('Find tools by describing the data or task') and lists numerous specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a discovery tool rather than a specific query or analysis tool.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description also implies that for a single known task, a more specific sibling tool should be used.

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