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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: that results are tool definitions with call parameters, and that the call is free (0 credits) — the latter being real value in a credit-based catalog. It says nothing about ranking, relevance, or empty-result behavior, so it adds value but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences with the outcome front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Free. (cost: 0 credit)' restates the same fact twice, a minor redundancy that keeps it off a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by sketching the return shape (matching tools, their parameters, how to call them). For a three-parameter discovery tool it is largely adequate, but the absence of any guidance on default result count, result ordering, or the relationship to sibling discovery/list tools leaves gaps.

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 clarifies that the `need` parameter should be natural language ('plain words'), which is a small semantic addition, but it says nothing about `limit` behavior (default value, effect on response size) or what `sector` actually constrains.

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 states a specific action ('describe what you need' → 'get the best matching tools') and names the resource domain (native and imported APIs) plus the return content (parameters and how to call them). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_apis, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: describing a need in plain words suggests the tool is for discovery when the right endpoint is unknown, but it never says when to prefer this over list_apis or any specific sibling search tool. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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