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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that task text is discarded and what is returned, but it never explains the relationship between the stated purpose (find a gateway) and the 9 unrelated input parameters (city, zone, json, feed, etc.). An agent cannot tell what happens to these inputs or why a gateway-finder takes a timezone or JSON text.

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 zero waste and the purpose front-loaded. The 'Task text discarded' note is placed last and earns its place as a behavioral disclosure. Length is appropriate for the information conveyed.

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?

This is a complex tool: 9 unrelated parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 27 siblings. The description explains the return payload but not the parameters or the selection logic. An agent would struggle to understand why a gateway-finder accepts a city name, timezone, or JSON text, making the description incomplete for this complexity level.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter detail. The schema carries all of it, but the schema entries are cryptic for a gateway-finder ('discarded after the shape check' on nearly every field), so the semantics remain unclear despite complete coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (public pay-per-call tool gateway Monid) and lists the return payload (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). Some confusion from the name-description mismatch: 'agent-tool-index' implies an index of tools, but the description is about a gateway, which obscures its relationship to the 27 sibling check/hint tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the 27 siblings. No alternatives are named and no conditions are stated. The only usage hint is implicit in the name 'agent-tool-index', which the description never articulates. 'Task text discarded' is a behavioral note, not usage guidance.

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