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

There are no annotations to provide safety or side-effect context, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'task text discarded' and that it returns connection methods, but it does not disclose whether the tool performs external calls, whether it is read-only, or whether it incurs costs, especially since 'pay-per-call' is mentioned ambiguously.

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 brief and avoids unnecessary padding. The phrase 'task text discarded' is a useful disambiguator even though the overall purpose is somewhat unclear.

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 nine optional parameters, many sibling tools, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know what output to expect or how parameters should be combined. It also lacks details about the returned connection methods and any constraints on input.

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%, so the parameter descriptions already provide basic meaning. The tool description adds little beyond that and does not explain how the various optional parameters influence the gateway search, leaving their role in the tool's operation unclear.

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 the tool finds a public pay-per-call tool gateway and returns connection methods, so the core intent is somewhat clear. However, the tool name 'agent-tool-index' and the phrase 'task text discarded' introduce ambiguity about what the tool actually indexes and how it selects a gateway.

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 examples of tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. There is no clear guidance about which parameters should be provided or how the tool relates to the alternative utility tools.

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