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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds valuable behavioral context: returns top-N tools with full schemas and 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed,' which clarifies the output and immediate usability. This goes beyond the structured 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 composed of four efficient sentences, each adding distinct value: core purpose, usage scenarios, output format, and priority guidance. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 with a well-documented schema, the description fully covers the tool's role, output, and usage context. It explains what the return value looks like (top-N tools with schemas) even in the absence of an output schema, and it appropriately positions the tool within the broader tool ecosystem (call first when exploring options).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already provides rich descriptions for 'query' with examples and alias definitions. The tool description lists many domains, which gives context for valid query topics but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. No extra parameter-level semantics are introduced.

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 explicitly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It also lists the domains it covers (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as a discovery gateway rather than an analysis tool. The title 'Discover Tools' reinforces this purpose.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: '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 also implies when not to use (when you want a specific answer), giving clear context for tool selection.

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