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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotenceHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the fact that task text is discarded and describes the output payload (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). However, it doesn't disclose whether any of the schema parameters are actually used or whether the returned artifacts are fetched from a remote endpoint.

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-loaded with the purpose, followed by the output summary and a behavioral caveat. No filler.

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 is sufficient for a simple lookup but leaves the relationship between the seven schema parameters and the gateway-finding purpose unexplored; it's unclear what input actually selects the gateway, and the 'Task text discarded' hints at an input that is not in the schema. The absence of an output schema makes the returned artifact list helpful but not detailed enough to know how to consume them.

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 descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), mostly noting they are discarded after validation or use, so the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 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?

States a specific action ('Find') and resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and enumerates the returned artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). The Monid gateway reference distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which mention this service.

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 the tool is used when an agent needs a pay-per-call tool gateway, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The 'Task text discarded' note warns that task input is ignored, which is a useful constraint, but it never names a sibling tool or condition for choosing this one.

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