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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and safe. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by stating that 'Task text discarded' and by enumerating the returned artifacts: CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops. This exceeds what annotations alone tell the agent.

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, no filler: the first sentence identifies the target, and the second specifies both outputs and a notable side-effect (task text discarded). The key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming all four artifact types returned. With full parameter documentation and read-only annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to understand what the call does and what it receives.

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 property descriptions cover 100% of the seven parameters, so the description does not need to duplicate their meanings. It adds no per-parameter detail beyond the schema, which fits the baseline 3 for full schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Find') on a specific resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)') and lists the exact outputs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lib-docs-hint or status-catalog, which point at different resources.

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 description gives clear context: use this tool when you need a Monid pay-per-call gateway and its CLI/skill/hops details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no sibling appears to overlap with this purpose directly.

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