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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states that task text is discarded, and the schema-level descriptions further note that several parameters are discarded after a shape check. The "Find" and "Returns" wording implies a read-only lookup, but it does not elaborate on side effects, auth, or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: state the operation, enumerate outputs, and warn about discarded input. The information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 names the outputs and warns about discarded task text, but it does not explain how the six parameters relate to the gateway lookup or which parameter(s) should be passed. The schema descriptions help at the field level, yet the overall calling convention remains ambiguous given no required fields and no output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though the global "Task text discarded" line reinforces that input values are not used directly.

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") with a concrete resource ("public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)") and lists the deliverables (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This sets it apart from the sibling tools, which are largely validation/URL/fetch utilities.

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 versus alternatives. The only caution, "Task text discarded," is a behavioral note rather than a usage condition. An agent must infer calling context from the purpose and schema.

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