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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing return behavior: returns top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas, ready to call directly with no second lookup. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's output characteristics.

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 front-loaded with 'Find tools' and uses a few sentences to cover purpose, use cases, return value, and strategic advice. While the domain list is somewhat long, it provides useful context and every sentence serves a purpose. It is concise enough for a meta-tool.

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?

For a discovery tool, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, what it returns (top-N, with schemas and examples), and even notes the advantage of no second lookup. Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format, making it self-sufficient.

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 restates the query concept ('describing the data or task') and mentions 'top-N' which aligns with the limit parameter, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides. The schema fully documents query and aliases, so the description's contribution is marginal.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It enumerates multiple domains and explicitly distinguishes itself from other tools by being a meta-tool for discovery. This is distinct from sibling tools like search_wikipedia or search_within, which are not about discovering tool options.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This both states the appropriate context and implies it should not be used when a specific answer is already known.

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