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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results include 'full input schemas (with curated examples)' and are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as the richness of the response and convenience. No contradictions.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance and return details. It is front-loaded and concise, earning every word.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value: 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly.' This covers all needed context. Parameter count is high due to aliases but effectively only two parameters (query, limit), which are well-explained. The description is complete for this 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters (including aliases). The description mentions 'query' and 'limit' but adds little beyond the schema: it says query is a 'natural language description' and the default/max limit. Since the schema already provides this, the description adds minimal semantic value, meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists many specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), making the scope explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are specific functions like aircraft_near or bet_research, by being a discovery tool for browsing 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 explicitly advises: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly say when not to use, but the context implies it is for exploration before picking a specific tool. Alternatives are not named, but sibling tools are distinct.

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