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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a read-only safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it states the outputs (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops) and notes that 'Task text discarded,' which informs the agent that any conversational payload is ignored. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero redundant wording. The primary purpose comes first, followed by the return content and a notable behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return contents, mentions the discarded task text, and relies on annotations for safety. It could clarify what 'Monid' is or what 'remote MCP hops' precisely entails, but the current description gives an agent enough to invoke it 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 the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to. This meets the baseline for a fully schema-covered tool.

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 verb and resource: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid).' It further specifies what is returned (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops), making the tool's function unmistakable. None of the sibling tools cover pay-per-call gateways, so it is clearly differentiated.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to locate a public Monid gateway. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over other tools or any stated exclusions. The sibling set is broad, so an agent must infer appropriateness from the resource name alone.

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