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

With readOnlyHint, idempotenceHint, and side-effect hints already present, the annotations carry the safety profile. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that task text is discarded — the tool ignores the payload and acts purely as an index — and by stating what it returns. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 short sentences front-load the purpose, then the returns, then the key behavioral caveat. Every clause earns its place with no filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately names the return items and flags that task text is discarded; combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly. Minor ambiguity remains around what Monid is and why the gateway index accepts city/feed/json parameters, but the schema's 'discarded' notes mitigate this.

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 input schema already documents all six string parameters, including the 'discarded after the shape check' notes. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)' — and enumerates the deliverable contents (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which are URL, shape, and validation utilities.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would invoke this when it needs Monid's CLI setup, skill file, or remote MCP hops. However, the description names no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives among the siblings, leaving the when-to-use decision largely to inference.

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