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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it lists the four artifact types returned and explicitly states that task text is discarded, which is a useful non-retention trait. It doesn't cover side effects, auth, or rate limits, but for a read-only finder the core behavior is reasonably 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the action and resource are frontloaded, followed by a concise output summary and one data-handling note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 invocation context is incomplete: all 9 parameters are optional and unrelated-looking, and the description doesn't say which, if any, should be supplied to find a Monid gateway. There is no output schema, so the listed returns help but are not enough for an agent to know how to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema: it doesn't explain how parameters relate to finding a Monid gateway or why several are discarded. It neither helps nor hurts the schema's coverage.

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 resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)') and a clear verb ('Find'), and lists concrete return payloads: CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops. This distinguishes it from the 27 sibling tools, none of which target Monid or pay-per-call gateways. 'Monid' is unexplained, but the resource type is specific enough.

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 implies when to use the tool ('when you need to find a Monid gateway') but never explicitly states this condition or contrasts it with alternatives. It also provides no guidance on which of the 9 optional parameters matter for the lookup. This is implied usage rather than clear routing.

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