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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool 'returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and effectively structured with examples and benefits. However, the long list of example domains (SEC filings, financials, etc.) is somewhat verbose and could be more concise.

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 compensates by explaining that the output includes 'names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and that each result is 'ready to call directly.' For a discovery tool, this provides complete context for an AI agent.

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 all parameters described. The description adds value by explaining query aliases and providing natural language query examples (e.g., 'analyze housing market trends'). However, it does not add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 function: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists numerous example domains (SEC filings, financials, etc.) and explains that it returns top-N relevant tools with full schemas. It distinguishes from siblings by advising to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want 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?

The description explicitly says to call this tool 'FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' It provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you already know the exact tool name).

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