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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas, and notes each result is ready to call directly without a second schema lookup. This sets accurate expectations without contradiction.

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 four sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then usage context, then return-value details, then strategic advice ('Call this FIRST'). Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 explains the return structure (names, descriptions, schemas with curated examples) and the appropriate use case. Given the tool's read-only, discovery nature and the richness of the parameter schema, the description is fully self-contained.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by enumerating example topic areas (e.g., 'SEC filings, financials, revenue, profit, FDA drugs...'), giving the agent concrete sense of what queries to use. This supplemental guidance earns a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It clearly distinguishes this meta-discovery tool from its domain-specific siblings by stating it returns ready-to-call tool schemas and advising to 'Call this FIRST' when exploring options. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and lists many concrete domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.). It also recommends calling first when many tools are available. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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