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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns top-N most relevant tools with full schemas and curated examples, ready to call. This is consistent and provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though annotations already cover safety.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is a single paragraph dense with useful examples, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for the list of domains) without losing clarity.

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?

For a discovery tool, the description is complete: it explains what it does, how to use it (when to call it first), what it returns (top-N tools with schemas and examples), and provides many domain examples. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers expected output behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'query' and 'limit' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade but also does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists extensive example tasks (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a discovery/metatool that returns multiple tool options ready to call.

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 advises to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This tells the agent when to use it and implies alternatives (e.g., directly calling a known tool). The description also provides example queries that cover common use cases.

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