find_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds behavior they don't cover: results carry confidence, effect (read/write), and a gate value (allow/confirm/block), which tells the agent results may need confirmation before execution. It doesn't say what happens on zero matches or how many results are returned.

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 short front-loaded sentences: what it does, what to pass, what comes back and what to do next. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description usefully summarizes the result shape and the call_tool handoff. The one real gap is the undocumented 'context' parameter and edge-case behavior when nothing matches.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden and only partially does. It clarifies the required 'request' as plain-language text (user request or sub-task), but the optional 'context' parameter is never addressed or distinguished from 'request'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the best tools for a task') with scope ('across every server connected to ToolBox'), and explicitly names the follow-up sibling call_tool. It does not differentiate itself from browse_tools, the other discovery sibling, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

'Pass the user's request, or the current sub-task, in plain language' gives a clear condition and input expectation, and 'Then run one with call_tool' makes the intended workflow explicit. There is no exclusion telling the agent when browse_tools would be the better choice.

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