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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas, and explicitly notes that results are ready to call directly with no second schema lookup. It doesn't mention limitations like pagination or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 structured logically: purpose, when to use, return value, and a directive to call first. The list of domains is somewhat long but directly informs the agent of relevant use cases. Every sentence contributes value, and there is minimal redundancy, though it could be slightly trimmed.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's role: it explains the return format (top-N tools with schemas and examples), the lack of need for a second lookup, and the recommended invocation order among many sibling tools. Even without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent should expect, given the tool's straightforward discovery purpose.

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 each parameter having a description. The description itself does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it does mention that query accepts aliases, but this is already encoded in the schema properties (q, task, search, description). The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 resource (tools) and verb (find/discover), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a meta-tool that returns available tools rather than performing domain-specific tasks. The listed domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) further clarify 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: '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.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool instead of directly using a specific sibling, making it a strong usage guideline.

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