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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It notes that task text is discarded and that connection methods are returned, but it does not disclose side effects, network usage, cost implications, or idempotency, leaving key behavioral aspects unknown.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the core function and return value. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to read, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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?

Given the complexity of 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to request a specific task, what a 'connection method' looks like, or provide examples, leaving the agent without crucial context for successful 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a one-line description, meeting the baseline. However, descriptions like 'Search text; discarded after the length check' do not explain how the parameter relates to the tool's purpose of finding a gateway, leaving ambiguity about task-to-parameter mapping.

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 that the tool finds a public pay-per-call gateway for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice, and returns connection methods. However, it is vague about how the task is specified or which parameter drives the selection, making the purpose somewhat unclear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its many siblings (e.g., weather-hint, search-query-len, fetch-status). It offers no comparison, exclusions, or context for selection.

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