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

The description discloses the return behavior in detail: returns top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas including curated examples, ready to call directly with no second schema lookup. It also states the 'call this FIRST' ordering. Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that.

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 ('Find tools'), then provides a useful domain list, return format, and a usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure flows logically from what to when to return behavior.

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 simple discovery tool, the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and direct invocation readiness. It is self-sufficient even without an output schema, and the read-only annotations align with the described behavior. No gaps remain.

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%: the query parameter is fully documented with aliases and examples, and limit is explained. The description only loosely references 'describing the data or task' without adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It enumerates the domains covered (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling data tools by being the meta-tool for tool discovery.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and advises calling it FIRST when many tools are available. It offers clear context but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternative tools, so it stops just short of a perfect score.

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