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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about return format (top-N tools, names, descriptions, full schemas with curated examples) and positional usage ('ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed'). No contradictions with 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?

The description is moderately long but efficiently structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then gives use cases, return behavior, and positional guidance. Every sentence carries meaningful content without redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value: top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, full input schemas, and curated examples, ready to call directly. Combined with usage guidance and schema examples, this is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 reinforces that 'query' is a natural-language description and lists example domains, but the schema already documents aliases and provides examples. No additional parameter semantics are added beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('tools'), clearly states the mechanism ('describing the data or task'), and enumerates numerous data domains. It distinguishes itself from siblings by instructing to 'Call this FIRST' to see the option set.

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 explicit when-to-use 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'. It implies when not to use (seeking a single answer) but does not name specific alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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