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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: '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 discloses response format and usability beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single paragraph but well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then listing applicable domains, then explaining return value. It is not overly verbose for the information conveyed. Some agents might prefer bullet points for clarity, but it remains readable and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mostly aliases) and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the use case, return format (top-N tools with schemas), and how results are ready to call. No output schema exists, but the description covers the output sufficiently. Examples in the input schema further aid completeness.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description mentions that query accepts natural language and lists aliases (task, q, description, search) which are already in the schema. It adds examples but no additional semantic depth. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly augment parameter meaning.

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 purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists specific domains (SEC filings, financials, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings by saying 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set.' The verb 'discover' and resource 'tools' are precise.

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 for: ...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' This provides strong guidance. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the context makes it clear that if you already know the tool, you wouldn't use this. The sibling list is large, so the tool fills a clear discovery niche.

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