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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that task text is discarded and that connection methods are returned. It does not mention side effects, network calls, authentication needs, cost/billing implications, or the fact that all parameter values are also discarded; the schema descriptions carry most of that disclosure externally.

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 concise at three sentences with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The final sentence 'Task text discarded' is brief but slightly confusing since no 'task text' parameter exists; otherwise every line earns its place and there is no padding.

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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and a meta-indexing role, but the description does not explain how the parameters map to the named tasks, how the returned 'connection methods' are structured, or what the agent should do with them. An agent would be unsure which parameter to supply for a given task and what format to expect back.

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 of the 9 parameters already has a meaning-rich description in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the task examples, and it does not explicitly map task categories (weather/search/scrape/voice) to parameters (city/query/url), which would have been valuable.

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 action (find) and resource (a public pay-per-call tool gateway) with concrete task examples (weather, search, scrape, voice), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'hint' and 'shape' tools. It falls short of a 5 because 'connection methods' is somewhat vague and the final sentence '(Task text discarded)' does not map cleanly to any named schema property.

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 a light 'when to use' signal through task-type examples, but it never tells the agent when to choose this index instead of a direct sibling like weather-hint, web-fetch, or scrape-related tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so the agent must infer routing from the schema.

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