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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: '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 discloses output format and reusability, which is valuable for an agent. No contradiction 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 well-structured: first sentence captures purpose, then lists domains, then describes output, then gives usage guidance. It is moderately concise but front-loaded with key information. Could be slightly trimmed, but every sentence earns its place.

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 (discovery of many domains) and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient completeness: it explains the return format (names, descriptions, schemas) and that results are callable directly. It does not detail exact output structure but is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's value.

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%, so baseline 3. The description mentions example queries like 'analyze housing market trends' but does not add deeper meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. The schema lists 'query' and aliases with descriptions; the description merely reinforces these.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('tools'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by listing domains it covers and emphasizing it is for browsing/discovery, not for querying specific data.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' It tells when to use (instead of guessing or picking randomly) and what it returns (top-N relevant tools). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools that are more specific.

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