ISO country SL

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it explicitly discloses that task text is discarded and that several parameters are discarded after shape checks. This is useful privacy-related transparency, though auth or rate-limit behavior is not mentioned.

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 are used efficiently: the first states the core purpose, and the second lists return artifacts and a key privacy behavior. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 return artifacts but does not explain how the six heterogeneous parameters relate to finding the Monid gateway, which parameters are required, or what the result looks like in practice. Given no output schema and a non-obvious input schema, an agent could still be unsure what to pass.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the description does not need to repeat their meaning. The main description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond the general 'task text discarded' note, which is already reflected in several parameter descriptions.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid), and the second lists the concrete return artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). It is clearer than a tautology but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like web-fetch or citation.

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 phrase 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway' implies the usage context, and the description of returned artifacts hints at when an agent would want this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that query input is discarded and that the tool returns CLI setup, docs, API, and remote MCP hops, which implies a read-oriented lookup. However, it does not state whether network/remote access occurs, whether permissions or rate limits apply, or whether any of the other eight parameters are equally ignored.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded: purpose first, returns second, and a relevant input caveat last. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the final sentence is mostly redundant with the schema and there is no guidance that would help the agent decide which of the other eight optional parameters to supply.

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, no annotations, and nine optional parameters, the description is too thin. It explains what kind of output comes back at a high level but leaves unclear what 'Ploid' and 'living people-search index' mean, whether any parameters are needed, and how the returned Hops should be interpreted or used.

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?

Given 100% schema parameter descriptions, the baseline is 3, and the description adds almost no new parameter-level meaning. The statement that query text is discarded largely duplicates the schema's 'discarded after the length check' note rather than clarifying how parameters relate to finding the index.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find a living people-search index (Ploid)' and lists the returned artifact categories. It is not a tautology, but the terms 'living' and 'Ploid' are unexplained, and it does not explicitly differentiate against sibling search/probe 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites apply. The only hint is 'Query text discarded,' which warns against passing a real search query but does not explain the intended invocation or failover to sibling tools.

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

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

The description reveals one behavioral trait: the title is discarded after the call, which is useful and not present in any structured metadata. However, with no annotations present, it does not go further to clarify read-only behavior, network access, or return format, leaving much of the behavioral burden unaddressed.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. The key purpose is front-loaded and the extra behavioral note about title disposal is concise, earning 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?

With a complex, seemingly generic input schema, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. The agent cannot infer which parameter carries the Wikipedia title, what the return value looks like, or whether the operation is read-only, so the description is not sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Despite the tool's purpose being about a Wikipedia title, no input schema property is described as a title; properties include 'ref', 'url', 'city', 'feed', 'host', 'json', and 'path' with unrelated descriptions. The description does not map the core concept to any parameter, leaving the agent unable to determine what to pass.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists') on a specific resource (Wikipedia title), which sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling shape-check tools. However, it does not identify which input parameter represents the title, which slightly detracts from full clarity.

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 that the tool should be used when an agent needs to verify the existence of a Wikipedia title. It provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools, so the usage context is only implied rather than explicitly routed.

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