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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the complete 770-operation coverage and the fact that no API key is needed, which is a non-obvious access trait an agent would otherwise have to discover by failing.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the return-value payload is front-loaded and the access caveat follows. Every clause adds information an agent can act on.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (method, URL, credit cost, required body fields, reference link). Combined with full schema coverage and safety annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so all three parameters (query, limit, keyless_only) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description's mention of keyless operation loosely relates to keyless_only but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (endpoints) and immediately enumerates what each result carries: method, URL, credit cost, required body fields, and reference link. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling docs tools (list_docs, read_doc, search_docs), which operate on documentation rather than operations.

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?

Gives real usage context: it covers all 770 operations and requires no API key, so an agent knows it can be used to price a workflow before credentials exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use it, but the scope statement is strong enough to route correctly.

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