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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about the output: '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.' This explains return format and direct callability, going beyond the structured 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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded core purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' Each sentence contributes distinct information (what, when, return format), with no redundancy or filler.

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?

As a discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, return value (top-N tools with schemas), and note that results are directly callable. Given the moderate complexity and rich annotations, this is fully 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the main 'query' field and all aliases. The description only mentions 'top-N' which is already detailed in the limit parameter ('default 20, max 50'). Thus, the description adds little value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 begins with 'Find tools by describing the data or task', clearly identifying the verb (find) and resource (tools). It distinguishes itself from domain-specific siblings by explicitly positioning itself as a discovery meta-tool ('Call this FIRST when you have many tools available').

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and instructs to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set'. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative discovery/retrieval tools, 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.