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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'Task text discarded' and lists the outputs, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires auth. The schema shows many parameters are discarded, which is only hinted at by 'Task text discarded.' It adds some behavioral context but not enough for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that front-loads the purpose and includes return content. There is no wasted text, and it is efficiently structured. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing returns with commas), but it remains concise and readable.

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 description is vague on how inputs affect the output. With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, an agent cannot determine what to provide or whether any parameter is required. It says 'Task text discarded' but does not explain if any parameter is needed for the 'find' operation. Missing information on invocation makes the tool difficult to use correctly.

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 clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't indicate which parameters are used or how they affect the result. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers the parameters, though the description could have clarified that most are discarded.

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 a specific action ('Find') and a specific resource ('a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and lists the return content (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). It is distinct from the sibling tools, which are mostly URL/shape/format validators; this one targets a specific service discovery. The name 'Monid' is niche, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. the many siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or the condition that should trigger this tool. The sibling list includes many shape-check tools, and this one is clearly different, but the description does not state 'use when you need Monid' or similar.

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