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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with. It adds behavioral details such as returning 'full input schemas (with curated examples)' and that results are 'ready to call directly,' providing value beyond annotations. No contradictions, but some aspects like error handling are omitted.

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?

Four sentences, each contributing unique value: purpose, domain list, return value with usage note, and strategic guidance. No redundant information. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (names, descriptions, schemas, examples) and states they are callable immediately. This is sufficient for a discovery tool. Minor omissions (e.g., error behavior) but overall complete for its complexity.

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% with all 6 parameters described. The description adds context about query aliases (task, q, description, search) and provides example queries. However, it does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states 'Find tools by describing the data or task,' specifying the verb and resource. It lists diverse domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deep_research or geocode by being a discovery tool. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides strong context for when to use it, though it lacks explicit statements about when not to use it. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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