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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states task text is discarded, which is a meaningful privacy/behavioral trait, and it enumerates what is returned. It does not discuss pay-per-call cost side effects or remote execution risk, but the read-only 'find/return' framing is fairly transparent.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words: action first, outputs second, behavioral caveat third. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The description lists the returned artifacts and gives a key behavioral caveat, which is adequate for a documentation-lookup tool. However, it never clarifies what Monid is or how the 9 optional parameters relate to finding the gateway, leaving the invocation contract somewhat ambiguous.

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 9 parameters are already documented with notes like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'no disk access'. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Find'), resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and returned artifacts ('CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops'). It differentiates itself from the sibling validator/hint tools by its output categories, although 'Monid' is left unexplained.

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 intended use is implied: invoke this when you need to locate the Monid gateway and retrieve setup/skill documentation. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives among the many sibling tools; 'Task text discarded' is the only implied limitation.

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