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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the return format: '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.' It also mentions limit behavior. There is 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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return format. It is moderately concise; every sentence adds value. Could be slightly shorter but remains focused and well-structured.

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, mostly aliases) and the rich annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains purpose, usage, return format, and parameter semantics without needing an output schema. All aspects required for correct invocation are covered.

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 adds meaning by explaining the 'query' parameter as a 'natural language description' with concrete examples (e.g., 'analyze housing market trends') and lists aliases. The limit parameter is described with default and max values. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 lists specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by advising 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set.' No ambiguity.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and advises calling it first when many tools are available. The list of example tasks (SEC filings, financials, etc.) clarifies the use case. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the 'first' directive implies it's for discovery before direct calls, which is sufficient.

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