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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral detail—"Task text discarded"—and lists what the tool returns. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects, which is a moderate gap for a lookup tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then names the outputs and an important discard behavior. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a simple lookup, the description names the returned artifacts and flags that task text is ignored. But with six optional-looking parameters and no output schema or annotations, it does not explain how the parameters relate to the lookup or when to invoke it, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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?

The schema already documents all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying task text is discarded, which does not map to any schema property. It does not compensate for or improve upon 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?

States the specific verb "Find" and a specific resource: "public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)". It lists concrete returns—CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops—which clearly separates it from sibling tools focused on URLs, validation, and timing.

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?

No guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as web-fetch, normalize-url, or fetch-status. The purpose is implied, but the description gives no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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