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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by stating that each result includes full input schemas with curated examples and is ready to call directly without a second lookup. This goes beyond annotations and provides useful behavioral insight.

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 slightly long but well-structured: opens with a clear purpose, then usage guidance, a list of applicable domains, return format, and when to call. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy (e.g., listing domains could be trimmed). Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool has no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return value: 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples).' With 6 parameters (1 required) and no enums or nested objects, the description fully covers what an agent needs to use the tool effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that the query parameter accepts multiple aliases (query, task, q, search, description) and provides examples like 'analyze housing market trends'. This enriches the semantic understanding beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 a wide range of domains (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a meta-discovery tool that finds other tools, unlike the specific data-retrieval tools listed as siblings.

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 says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and advises 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and distinguishes it from direct query tools.

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