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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that it returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This reveals the tool's output behavior and efficiency. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by return behavior and a practical recommendation. Every sentence carries weight—no fluff or repetition. Excellent structure for quick agent comprehension.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (names, descriptions, schemas, examples) and why to call it first. It covers purpose, usage, and result format. Minor omissions like edge-case behavior or parameter alias handling are already covered in the schema, so the description is sufficient for a discovery tool.

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%, with each parameter clearly documented including aliases. The description adds a brief note about 'top-N' and the limit parameter's effect, but mostly reiterates schema info. Since the schema covers everything, the description doesn't significantly add parameter meaning beyond what's already present.

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 uses specific verb 'Find' and resource 'tools', and enumerates covered domains (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.), clearly distinguishing it as a discovery meta-tool. It also explicitly frames itself as the first call to see the option set, differentiating from sibling search and analysis tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for:' and gives concrete contexts. Also provides a clear directive: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This directly guides selection among siblings.

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