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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: '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 goes beyond annotations to explain the exact output and usage convenience.

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 relatively concise given the amount of information it conveys, starting with the core purpose and then listing domains. It's slightly lengthy but every sentence serves a purpose. A minor improvement could be more structured bullet points, but it's already effective.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool returns (top-N tools with full schemas and examples) and when to use it (discovery phase). It provides enough context for the agent to understand the tool's utility and output format.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description further clarifies the aliasing of query parameters ('Accepts task, q, description, search as aliases') and provides concrete examples of natural language queries. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 'Find tools by describing the data or task' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the discovery tool, with an extensive list of domains it covers (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and implies that for specific tasks with a known tool, other tools should be used instead.

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