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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait ('Task text discarded') and says it returns connection methods, but does not mention side effects, external calls, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The minimal disclosure is adequate for a finder but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, gives examples, and notes the discard behavior with zero fluff. It is concise and well-structured, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

Despite having 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain how parameters map to tasks, which parameters are relevant for which scenario, or what 'connection methods' entails. An agent would struggle to decide which parameter to populate without additional context. The schema descriptions help but are not sufficient for this complex tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema—only the general note that task text is discarded, which is already partially reflected in individual parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). No extra meaning is provided.

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 uses a specific verb (find) and a specific resource (public pay-per-call tool gateway), and gives concrete example tasks (weather, search, scrape, voice). It also states what it returns (connection methods), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specific operations rather than discovering gateways.

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 usage for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many specific sibling tools (e.g., weather-hint, search-query-len). It offers no exclusions or direct alternatives, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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