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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that results include full schemas 'with curated examples' and are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' While the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint are already provided, the output behavior and the 'top-N' ranking are described, which is useful for an agent. It does not, however, detail limitations like truncation or ranking criteria, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource ('Find tools'), followed by a compact list of example domains and a clear explanation of output and usage priority. Every sentence contributes value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return behavior (names, descriptions, full schemas, curated examples), usage context (when to call first), and the scope of data domains. It provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool without further lookup.

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% — every parameter (query, q, task, limit, search, description) is documented in the input schema, including aliases and default limits. The description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It specifies what it returns (top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or deep_research, which are concrete tools to be discovered rather than a meta-search utility.

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 usage guidance is given: '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 and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This clearly contrasts with using specific tools directly, providing both when-to-use and a directional preference.

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