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

The description explicitly discloses that task text is discarded, and most parameter descriptions state data is discarded or not accessed (e.g., 'no disk access', 'titles discarded'). This is transparent, though it does not mention network behavior or any cost/payment implications beyond the 'pay-per-call' phrase.

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, focused sentence plus a short output note. It contains no redundant marketing or filler, and every clause contributes information.

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 tool has no output schema or annotations, and the description only says 'Returns connection methods' without specifying the format, error behavior, or whether an actual paid call is made. It is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks edge-case and result-shape detail.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions, so schema coverage is high, but several descriptions are not clearly connected to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' in a gateway-finding tool). The repeated 'discarded' caveats add some meaning by telling users inputs are ignored, but the mapping from a task to a parameter remains unclear.

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 names a specific action ('Find'), a concrete resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway'), and example task categories (weather, search, scrape, voice). It also states the output ('Returns connection methods'), which distinguishes it from the sibling fetch/search/weather 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?

It gives examples of when to use the tool (weather, search, scrape, voice) and warns that task text is discarded. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so guidance is slightly implicit.

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