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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower; the description adds useful context beyond that by disclosing that task text is discarded, that the call involves remote MCP hops, and by enumerating the returned artifacts. This is consistent with the read-only annotation.

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 earning its place: the purpose, the returns, and the task-text discard warning. The main purpose is fixed-loaded first with zero 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 lists the four return artifacts, which partly compense for the absent output schema, and the schema documents each parameter. However, it never states which parameter actually drives the lookup, leaving the agent to infer that most inputs are merely shape checks - a real gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 six parameters (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 where the schema carries 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 names a specific verb ('Find') and a distinct resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)') and lists what it returns (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill fil, and remote MCP hops). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling utility-check tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with a sibling.

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 when to use it (whenever the agent needs Midid gateway setup or hop info) and provides an implicit exclusion via 'Task text discarded'. However, no alternative tool is named, and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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