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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and notes that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the 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 roughly five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the list of domains and the note about direct callability. There is no wasted text.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly states what the tool returns (names, descriptions, schemas with examples). For a discovery tool, this is complete and informs the agent of the exact response format. No additional context is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'top-N most relevant tools' but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. It does group aliases, which is a minor improvement but not enough to raise the score.

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 and resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It then enumerates many specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools which are data-retrieval tools. The purpose is unambiguous and unique.

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: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' It implies the alternative is to directly call a known tool, providing clear guidance.

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