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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the return format (top-N tools with full input schemas and curated examples) and notes that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 slightly long due to the domain list, but every sentence serves a purpose: opening purpose, usage conditions, return details, and calling directive. It is front-loaded with the core action and maintains logical flow. The length is justified by the need to convey broad applicability.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining exactly what is returned (names, descriptions, full input schemas, curated examples) and that results are directly callable. It also covers when to use the tool and what it doesn't do (single-answer retrieval). This makes the tool's behavior and outputs clear without additional structured metadata.

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% and each parameter (query, q, task, search, description, limit) has a clear schema description. The tool description adds the concept of 'top-N' and lists example domains, but these are largely redundant with the schema's examples and property descriptions. It does not meaningfully deepen parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear statement: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It specifies the tool's role as a discovery/browsing mechanism, distinct from sibling tools that perform specific tasks. The list of domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) further clarifies scope.

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 even recommends 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This gives clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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