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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses two useful behavioral traits: the target gateway is pay-per-call (cost implications) and 'Task text discarded' (input text is not preserved/used). It stops short of stating auth needs, network behavior, or exact side effects, but this is meaningful beyond the schema.

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 short sentences, with the core purpose and output front-loaded. It is concise and avoids filler, though the 'Task text discarded' sentence is terse and could be expanded slightly to clarify its meaning.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to explain how to invoke the lookup and what 'returns ... remote MCP hops' means in practice. It lists output categories but does not say which parameter is required, how the inputs map to a gateway, or what the returned skill file/CLI setup looks like, so an agent would likely guess.

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 baseline applies: the schema already documents each of the six parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail; the only global hint, 'Task text discarded', is also echoed in the parameter descriptions. No contradiction, but no extra value above 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a concrete resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and it lists the artifacts returned (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This is not a tautology and gives an agent a clear idea of the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling validator/hint tools.

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 case is implied by the first sentence: an agent should use this when it needs Monid gateway setup or remote MCP hop information. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from the many sibling tools such as lib-docs-hint or web-fetch.

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