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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds beyond that: it discloses the output format ('returns top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas with curated examples') and that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed,' which is valuable behavioral context.

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 the core purpose. It lists many domains, which is helpful but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. It could be trimmed slightly, but it is well-structured and informative.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description fully compensates by explaining the output: 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly.' It also addresses the tool's role in the overall workflow. No gaps remain.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'query' and 'task' but does not add semantics beyond what the schema provides for each parameter. However, it clarifies that multiple aliases exist, which is a minor addition. No significant extra meaning.

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 begins with 'Find tools by describing the data or task,' clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It lists numerous specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools' and that it returns tools ready to call—differences from direct answer tools like deep_research or search_within.

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 states when to use the tool: '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.' It provides examples but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the guidance is strong.

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