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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas including curated examples, and states results are ready to call directly without a second schema lookup. This goes beyond basic annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with four purposeful sentences: purpose, when-to-use, return format, and strategic advice. The domain list is long but informative and earns its place by scoping the tool's coverage. No redundancies or fluff.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values and does so explicitly: 'Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples).' Combined with the rich input schema and annotation coverage, this is complete for a discovery tool with a simple query parameter.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including the query aliases and limit. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond restating that users describe data/task, which mirrors the query parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Find tools by describing the data or task' with a specific verb and resource, and the domain list (SEC filings, FDA drugs, FRED, etc.) distinguishes it from action-focused sibling tools. It positions itself as a meta-tool for discovery, which is distinct from tools like ask_pipeworx or bet_research.

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 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and '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 and when-not-to-use guidance, effectively differentiating it from tools that answer specific queries directly.

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