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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavior disclosure. It does disclose that this is a lookup/return operation and that task text is discarded, which is useful. However, it does not clarify authentication, external network behavior, rate limits, or whether the remote MCP hops involve side effects, leaving only partial transparency.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the return summary follows immediately, and the privacy-relevant 'Task text discarded' note is a compact guardrail.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and nine optional parameters, the description lists return categories but does not explain their format, meaning, or which parameters matter. It is adequate for a basic call but leaves an agent to infer how to interpret the result or whether specific inputs are needed.

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 nine parameters and their discarded-after behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and names a concrete resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)') plus the returned artifacts: CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops. This clearly separates it from the many sibling shape/validation tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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: call this when you need information about the Monid gateway. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, and the 'Task text discarded' note is more of a data-handling warning than a routing guideline.

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