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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that task text is discarded and that the result is connection methods, which is genuinely useful. It does not state side effects, network behavior, error outcomes, or whether the destination gateway is actually invoked.

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 three short sentences, each contributing a distinct fact: purpose, return type, and data-discard behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no explanatory filler or repetition.

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 output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to compensate. It gives a general purpose and return signal, but it does not specify a minimal valid call, how many hints should be provided, what kinds of return entries might appear, or how failures are represented.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover all 9 parameters, so the description can rely on that coverage and gets the baseline of 3. It adds only a few clues about how task families map to hints, but it does not explicitly explain which parameters are relevant for which task family or validate whether more than one hint can be passed.

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 names a specific action ('find'), a specific resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway'), and gives concrete example tasks. It also states the return type ('connection methods'), which helps distinguish it from the sibling hint, shape-check, and fetch 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?

The phrase 'for a task such as weather, search, scrape, or voice' gives some context for when to call it, and 'public pay-per-call' narrows the intended scope. However, it does not state when not to use it or point to an alternative sibling, so the agent has to infer the boundary between this tool and functions like web-fetch, geo-hint, or search-query-len.

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