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

The description explicitly discloses that task text is discarded and lists the returned artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, which provide no hints (all false). It also implies read-only 'find' semantics without stating them fully.

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 short sentences, each carrying necessary information: the core purpose, the return contents, and a key behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given that the schema covers parameter details and there is no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool does and returns. It also adds a caution that task text is ignored. It does not define the return format or mention prerequisites, but for a simple find-type tool this is largely complete.

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 input schema already describes each of the six parameters with concrete semantics, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a global note that task text is discarded, but that does not map to any specific schema property. No additional parameter-level 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 opens with a specific action and target: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid).' It clearly states a distinct resource and purpose, and the reference to 'remote MCP hops' distinguishes it from every sibling listed, none of which mention gateways or Monid.

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 intended use case is implied: an agent needing a pay-per-call tool gateway would call this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it, so guidance is only implicit.

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