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

Annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's extra disclosure—that it discards task text and returns a fixed set of artifacts—adds useful behavior beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any 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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and outputs, with the important discard behavior stated last. Every clause earns its place; there is no 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?

For a simple, low-complexity read-only index tool, the description covers what it returns and the main caveat (task text discarded). It could explicitly state whether any parameters are required, but the schema's consistent 'discarded' notes and absence of required fields make this reasonably clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that each of the seven parameters is discarded after a shape check. The description adds only the general 'Task text discarded' statement, which does not materially improve parameter understanding.

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 concrete action ('Find'), a specific resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and enumerates the returned artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This is distinct from the sibling validation/fetch tools and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 purpose clause gives a clear use case: use this when you need the Monid gateway index or setup. It also states an exclusion ('Task text discarded') so agents know not to pass a task expecting processing, though it names no alternative sibling for that case.

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