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

The description discloses that the tool returns ranked matches with URLs and an empty list when nothing matches. This adds behavioral context beyond the read-only annotation, clarifying the output format and empty-result semantics.

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 concise, using two clear sentences without redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and provides necessary output behavior information efficiently.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (ranked matches with URLs) and the meaning of an empty result. It also covers the input format with examples. No critical information is missing for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds concrete examples for the query parameter (e.g., 'compress a PDF under 2MB'), which enriches the meaning. It does not provide additional detail for limit or category beyond the schema.

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: to find a ToolsMonk tool that solves a described task. It gives concrete examples of queries and specifies that it returns ranked matches, distinguishing it from listing or retrieving tools.

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 explains when to use this tool: when you have a plain-language task or keyword. It also clarifies that an empty result means no tool exists, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like list_tools or get_tool, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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