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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'Task text discarded' but does not clarify whether the tool makes external network calls, whether it is read-only, or what side effects might occur. The statement about returning CLI setup and hops suggests some external lookup but leaves the mechanism unclear.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and avoids fluff. It efficiently conveys the core action and expected outputs. The note 'Task text discarded' is a small but relevant addition. It is concise without sacrificing essential information.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the task, what 'Monid' is, or how an agent should construct a valid call. The returned items are listed but not described in a way that helps an agent use the results. The description leaves too much room for misinterpretation.

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 all 9 parameters are documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already covers parameter semantics. The description does not clarify which parameters are relevant for the 'find' operation, but it does not conflict with the schema.

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 specific resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and lists the returned items. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that handle URL checks, validation, or citations. However, the term 'agent-tool-index' is somewhat ambiguous and the description could be clearer about what 'index' implies.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit 'use when' conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of which sibling tools might be more appropriate. The description is purely declarative without context for selection.

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