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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about the return value: 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and notes 'no second schema lookup needed.' This exceeds what annotations provide, though it omits things like pagination or rate-limit behavior.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: (1) core function, (2) when to use with domain list, (3) return behavior and first-call recommendation. It is front-loaded with the verb+resource and every sentence earns its place without fluff. The density of useful information per word is high.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly assumes the burden of explaining the return format ('names, descriptions, and full input schemas'). It also covers the key usage context ('Call this FIRST'), and the parameter schema handles the rest. For a tool discovery utility, this is complete: an agent knows what it does, when to use it, and what to expect back.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters (query plus aliases q, task, search, description, and limit) clearly described in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond saying 'describing the data or task,' which is already implied by the schema's 'query' description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the load.

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 'Find tools by describing the data or task' which clearly states the tool's function as a discovery mechanism. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing browsing/searching for available tools rather than performing a specific domain task, and it enumerates the coverage areas (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context: '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).' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke it but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, stopping short of a 5.

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