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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that task text is discarded and that it returns connection methods, but it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens to other input parameters. As a read-like operation, it's unclear if it has side effects. The disclosure is minimal.

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 sentence with no waste. It front-loads the main action and return value. However, it could benefit from a little more structure (e.g., listing the task types explicitly), but it's appropriately concise for the information it provides.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite incomplete. It doesn't explain how the tool is invoked, what the output format looks like, or which parameters are relevant for which tasks. An agent would need to inspect the schema to understand parameter usage, but the description doesn't provide enough context to know when or how to call this tool effectively.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds a note that task text is discarded, which hints that some parameters are only used for shape checks, but it doesn't explicitly map parameters to task types (e.g., city for weather, query for search). It adds marginal value beyond the 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 states a clear purpose: find a public pay-per-call tool gateway for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice, and returns connection methods. It distinguishes from siblings by being a gateway finder, though it could be more specific about what 'gateway' means. The verb 'find' and resource 'tool gateway' are clear.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or conditions for selection. The only context is the task examples, but it doesn't say 'use this when you need a gateway' or exclude cases where other tools are better.

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