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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds concrete behavioral details: returns tools with names, descriptions, full input schemas, and curated examples, ready to call directly. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then lists domains, then explains output and usage. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. It is efficient and well-organized.

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 complexity (6 parameters but simple aliases, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. It even notes that results are ready to call without a second lookup, which is critical for agent workflow.

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?

Input schema has 6 parameters with 100% coverage, describing each as an alias for 'query'. The description adds value by explaining these aliases and providing natural language examples. Baseline 3 is slightly exceeded due to clarifying alias behavior.

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 explicitly states the tool finds tools by describing data/task, lists specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), and clarifies it returns top-N relevant tools with full schemas ready to call. It clearly distinguishes itself as a discovery tool among many siblings.

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 gives explicit guidance: '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 use it and its primary role in the workflow.

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