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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the task text is discarded, and the parameter descriptions note that values are only shape-checked and not used further. This clarifies that the tool has no side effects on the provided data, though it does not detail rate limits or other operational behaviors.

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 exceptionally concise, with two sentences front-loading the core purpose first and then stating the output and side-effect. No redundant words or vague phrases; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's moderate complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it states the task, output type ('connection methods'), and the discarded-input behavior. It lacks specifics on what 'connection methods' entail, but the parameter descriptions fill most gaps. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions, and each description goes beyond type by explicitly stating that the value is discarded after a shape check (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). This clarifies that these parameters are placeholders for validating request shape, adding meaningful semantic context beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway'), and scope (for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice). It also specifies the output ('Returns connection methods'). This uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings.

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 gives some usage hints, such as examples of tasks and the note that 'Task text discarded' implies it's for finding a gateway rather than executing the task. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this instead of alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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