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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: it returns 'the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' It also explains alias handling. No contradictions.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states purpose and usage, the second explains the return value and strategic use. Every sentence is necessary and efficiently packed with information. No redundancy or fluff.

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 that the schema covers all parameters (100%) and no output schema is present, the description fully compensates by explaining exactly what is returned (names, descriptions, full schemas with examples) and that results are directly callable. It also mentions the default and max limit. For a tool of moderate complexity, this is 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 coverage is 100% with 6 parameters, many of which are aliases for 'query'. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'query' accepts natural language and that aliases like 'task', 'q', 'description', and 'search' are accepted. This clarifies usage beyond the schema, which only lists them as type string. However, the schema already provides descriptions for each alias. The additional value is moderate, so a 4 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists numerous domains (SEC filings, financials, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by stating 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for: ...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set.' It implies when-not-to-use by contrasting with tools that provide just one answer. No alternatives are named, but the context is clear enough.

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