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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing what it returns and the privacy-relevant trait that 'Task text discarded.' It does not, however, explain whether network calls are made, whether results are cached, or how 'remote MCP hops' are delivered.

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?

Three dense sentences with the main purpose and output list front-loaded; no filler. The final 'Task text discarded.' sentence earns its place as a behavioral caveat, though the unexplained 'Monid' reference costs the fifth point.

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?

With nine parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the invocation model, but it never says which input (if any) actually drives the gateway lookup, what Monid is, or how the four returned artifacts are structured. An agent can tell that most inputs are discarded, but not what it should supply to get a result.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only one param-level insight—that task text is discarded—which largely echoes the per-parameter 'discarded' notes already in 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 names a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and enumerates the return artifacts ('CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops'). This makes it clearly distinct from the check/hint-style sibling tools. However, 'Monid' and 'tool gateway' are unexplained jargon, so the purpose is clear but not fully self-contained.

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 use case is implied rather than stated: call this when you need Monid's gateway setup artifacts. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative routing to any of the 27 siblings (e.g., 'use web-fetch for raw page content instead').

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