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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that 'Task text discarded,' which is a useful behavioral detail, and that it returns connection methods. However, it does not explain side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what 'connection methods' actually include. For a tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient transparency about its operational impact.

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 three short sentences that front-load the core purpose and include a key behavioral note about discarding task text. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse. It is efficient without being overly terse, earning a strong conciseness score.

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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides only a vague return statement ('Returns connection methods'). It does not explain what 'connection methods' are, how to choose which parameter to pass for a given task, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided. This is a significant gap for a flexible gateway-finding tool, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 of the 9 parameters has a clear description. The tool description adds the context that these are hints for the gateway search and that some are discarded, which is slightly beyond schema. However, it does not map specific parameters to specific tasks (e.g., which parameter for 'weather' vs 'voice'), so it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: finding a public pay-per-call tool gateway for specific task categories (weather, search, scrape, voice). It uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway'), and explicitly mentions return value ('connection methods'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like weather-hint or search-query-len which actually perform the tasks.

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 context about what tasks the tool covers but does not explain when to use this gateway-finder versus directly calling the specific sibling tools. It lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives like fetch-status or normalize-url. The task categories are named but no exclusion or selection criteria are provided.

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