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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns 'the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and states results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This discloses output format and convenience behavior, complementing the readOnly/idempotent hints without contradiction.

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 efficiently organized: purpose, usage context, domain list, return behavior, and a directive to call first. Every sentence earns its place; the domain list is long but informative, not filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes responsibility for explaining return values, and it does: 'Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples).' It also covers the tool's role as an initial discovery step. For a simple read-only lookup tool, this is complete.

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 description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the schema already explains 'query', 'limit', and aliases. The description's mention of 'top-N' correlates with 'limit' but does not clarify syntax or defaults beyond what the schema states.

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 clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as a meta-tool for discovering other tools, not answering a query directly. The list of domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.) reinforces its unique scope.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: '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 tells the agent when to invoke it and frames it as a precursor to other tool calls, which is highly actionable.

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