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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Task text discarded' but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or how parameters affect the outcome. The absence of any statement about safety or reversibility for a tool that 'finds' something is insufficient.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the output list is concise. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool does.

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 9 optional parameters, no required ones, and no output schema. The description lists outputs but does not explain how the parameters influence the result, which parameters are relevant for a typical call, or the structure of the returned data. This is incomplete for a tool with such a wide parameter set.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add any semantic meaning beyond that, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema adequately documents parameters. The description mentions 'Task text discarded' but does not tie it to a specific parameter.

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 specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and enumerates the returned artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web-fetch or citation, which target different resources. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The description only says what it does, not the context in which it should be selected. For an agent comparing this to 27 siblings, the lack of explicit when-to-use instructions is a notable gap.

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