It's my understanding that a theory of everything describes the rules by which the universe operates. It doesn't say anything about emergent properties of these rules.
For example, if everything in the universe obeyed Newtonian mechanics, I would say that Newtonian mechanics was a theory of everything. You would say that it isn't.
Technically, a "Theory of Everything" in physics is just a theory that relates the four known forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnatism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. The latter three (I believe) have already been unified. It's a "theory of everything" because it describes every force in the universe.
That of course does not imply that the theory of everything automatically gets you a complete description of the universe. Even in the context of a single force, it can be difficult/impossible to come up with a closed form solution for how many different objects interact subject to that force. For example, the behavior of gravity is really well understood but that doesn't mean that we can come up with straightforward, closed form solutions for the n-body problem of a bunch of stars interacting with each other's gravitational pulls in space.
For example, if everything in the universe obeyed Newtonian mechanics, I would say that Newtonian mechanics was a theory of everything. You would say that it isn't.