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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It states that task text is discarded and that connection methods are returned, which are useful behavioral hints. However, it does not mention side effects, external calls, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some uncertainty for a meta-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 concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and a key behavioral note (task text discarded), making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 meta-tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it does, what it returns, and that task text is irrelevant. The parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema, and the tool's complexity is moderate, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters with explicit descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the length check'). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear purpose: find a pay-per-call tool gateway for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice, and returns connection methods. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on discovery rather than execution, but does not explicitly name sibling tools, relying on the example tasks to imply the distinction.

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 implies usage for discovering gateways rather than performing tasks directly, and notes that task text is discarded. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like weather-hint or search-query-len, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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