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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: '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 explains output structure and reusability. Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and description is consistent.

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 that front-loads purpose and lists domains, but it is somewhat verbose. It could be more concise by removing redundant phrases like 'full input schemas' since schema is implied. Every sentence earns its place but could be tightened.

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 tool with 6 parameters (mostly aliases), no output schema, and simple structure, the description covers purpose, return value, and usage context. It does not discuss error handling or rate limits, but annotations (readOnly, idempotent) fill gaps. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 6 parameters all described. The description adds usage examples (e.g., 'analyze housing market trends') which provide context but do not significantly extend schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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 numerous specific domains (SEC filings, FDA, etc.) and states it returns top-N tools with schemas. This differentiates it from siblings like search_within or deep_research by focusing on tool discovery rather than data retrieval.

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' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' It provides clear context for when to use, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or name specific alternatives.

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