Petstore MCP Server

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

No annotations are present, and the description discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, return values, or error conditions. It merely restates the tool's purpose, leaving the agent uninformed about the consequences of calling it.

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 redundant, repeating the same sentence twice with a separator. While short, the duplication wastes space and provides no additional insight, making it poorly structured.

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 tool has nested objects and required fields, yet the description provides none of the necessary context about the payload structure, required elements, or accepted values. With no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description mentions no parameters, and the schema has 0% description coverage. Required fields like name and photoUrls, along with nested objects and the status enum, are entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their format and constraints.

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 clear action ('Add a new pet to the store') with a specific resource (pet), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like updatePet or deletePet. However, it lacks scope details and the duplicated sentence adds no extra meaning.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'new' implies creation, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to other pet-related tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the auth requirement but gives no information about side effects, input validation, or behavior on duplicate users. It only restates the operation.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence provides the auth constraint. No wasted words.

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 a nested body object and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain required fields, defaults, or return behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the createUserBody object or its properties. It provides zero value for understanding parameters.

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 'Create user' which clearly identifies the operation as creating a single user. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool createUsersWithListInput, which also creates users, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 notes that 'This can only be done by the logged in user,' providing an authentication prerequisite. However, it does not offer guidance on when to prefer this over createUsersWithListInput or other alternatives, so usage context is only partially specified.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the purpose and gives no information about auth requirements (despite the x-hapi-auth-state parameter), side effects, error handling, or idempotency. This is a significant gap for a bulk creation tool.

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 extremely short but not concise because it repeats the same phrase twice, providing zero additional value. It could be a single sentence without losing meaning.

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 a non-trivial array parameter and no output schema or annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It lacks return value information, error cases, auth notes, and field descriptions, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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 0%, and the description adds no explanation for either parameter. It never mentions the auth state parameter or the structure of the user objects in the array, leaving the agent without critical semantic information.

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 the verb ('creates') and resource ('list of users'), and the input array differentiates it from createUser. However, the wording is redundant and lacks explicit mention of bulk operation, making it only somewhat clear despite the repetition.

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 alternatives like createUser. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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

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

Discloses that non-integer IDs or values above 1000 generate API errors, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not mention authentication requirements, irreversibility, or success/failure response behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 are concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence is slightly redundant ('For valid response...' then 'Anything above...') but overall efficient and well-structured.

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 simple delete operation, the description covers purpose and a key behavioral constraint, but omits response/return info, the auth-state parameter, and any mention of prerequisites or side effects. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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?

Description adds meaning to orderId by specifying valid integer range and error conditions, which the schema does not convey. However, it completely ignores the x-hapi-auth-state parameter, and with schema coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates for parameter documentation.

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?

Description clearly states 'Delete purchase order by identifier' – a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling deletePet/deleteUser. The purpose is unambiguous and directly communicated.

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?

Provides a parameter-related hint about valid IDs but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage context is implied (delete an order) but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Deletes a pet.' only implies a destructive action but does not disclose consequences (e.g., irreversibility), authentication requirements, or scope of deletion (e.g., does it cascade to related data?). This is insufficient for a delete operation.

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 short but redundant with two identical statements. It is under-specification rather than concise, as it fails to include necessary information about parameters or behavior. Every sentence is repeated, with no added value.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain any of these aspects. It does not mention required parameters, return values, error conditions, or any operational context. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention petId, api_key, or x-hapi-auth-state. The agent receives no explanation of what these parameters mean, how they relate, or any format details.

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 'Deletes a pet. - Delete a pet.' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'deletePet'. It adds no specificity about scope, nuances, or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like deleteOrder or deleteUser beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. There is no mention of when deletion is appropriate or what precautions should be taken.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the auth requirement, which is a key constraint, but it does not disclose whether the deletion is irreversible, what side effects occur on associated data, or any error conditions. The destructive nature is implied by 'delete' but not elaborated.

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 very short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds a necessary constraint. The dash between the sentences is slightly awkward but does not detract much from clarity. Overall, it is concise and to the point.

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?

Given the tool is a destructive delete operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, permissions beyond the logged-in constraint, and how it relates to other user-management tools. The description only covers the bare minimum.

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 0%, and the description offers no explanation of the parameters. 'username' is somewhat self-explanatory, but 'x-hapi-auth-state' is cryptic. The description does not clarify whether 'username' must refer to the logged-in user or any user, nor does it explain the auth state parameter format. This is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a user resource ('Delete user resource'), which distinguishes it from siblings like createUser, updateUser, and getUserByName. The additional constraint about the logged-in user adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 provides a usage condition: 'This can only be done by the logged in user.' This implies the agent should only invoke the tool when the user is authenticated. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like updateUser or deletePet.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only restates 'Finds Pets' and adds the comma-separated behavior, but doesn't disclose return format, error behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences. The first sentence is somewhat tautological but still clear; the second adds useful parameter detail without waste.

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 simple lookup tool, the description covers the core purpose and status filtering. However, the unexplained optional parameter and lack of return/error details leave gaps, especially without annotations or an output schema.

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 description adds meaning for the 'status' parameter (comma-separated values), but the schema already provides the enum. The optional 'x-hapi-auth-state' parameter is completely unexplained, and with 0% schema_description_coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 clearly states the tool finds pets by status, which is a specific verb+resource+filter. It distinguishes from sibling 'findPetsByTags' by the status criterion, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 findPetsByTags or other queries. The comma-separated note is a parameter hint, not a usage guideline.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that multiple tags can be comma-separated, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what happens on empty results. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 concise at two sentences, with the key action front-loaded. The second sentence adds a small testing hint, which is not entirely wasteful, though it could be omitted.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, any edge cases, or authentication needs. It fails to do so, only covering the input format. This is incomplete for a tool with only a name and no structured output documentation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the tags parameter format ('comma separated strings') but this potentially contradicts the schema's array type, creating confusion. The x-hapi-auth-state parameter is entirely undocumented.

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 clearly states 'Finds Pets by tags', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It differentiates from the sibling findPetsByStatus by indicating the filtering is by tags rather than status, though it does not explicitly mention that 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like findPetsByStatus. The instruction 'Use tag1, tag2, tag3 for testing' is a testing example, not a usage guideline, and does not clarify prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the return format (map of status codes) but does not mention auth requirements, side effects, or how the status parameter influences results. The existence of a parameter x-hapi-auth-state is completely undisclosed in behavior terms.

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 very short and front-loaded, stating the verb and resource immediately. It is concise but slightly redundant in repeating 'Returns' twice, and it lacks necessary detail despite being compact.

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 is simple but has an unexplained required-but-optional auth parameter. Without an output schema, the description's mention of the map format is helpful but insufficient. The description fails to explain the parameter or provide usage context, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent.

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 input schema has one parameter, x-hapi-auth-state, with no description, and the description does not mention it at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose or usage.

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 clearly states the tool returns pet inventories by status and specifies the return format as a map of status codes to quantities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getPetById and findPetsByStatus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where this tool is preferred.

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

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 the exception behavior for certain ID values, which is useful. However, it does not mention what the successful response looks like, potential 404 errors, or the auth state parameter, so transparency is partial.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a brief usage hint. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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 is simple (get by ID), and the description covers the core purpose and a relevant behavioral edge case. Without an output schema, it does not detail the return structure, but for a straightforward retrieval tool this is adequate.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies that 'orderId' is the ID and adds a constraint (integer values <=5 or >10). However, the 'x-hapi-auth-state' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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?

Clearly states 'Find purchase order by ID' – a specific verb ('find'), resource ('purchase order'), and lookup method ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'deleteOrder' and 'placeOrder'.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving an order when you have its ID. It also provides usage guidance about which integer ID values yield valid responses (<=5 or >10), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns a single pet, but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), authentication needs, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that could fail in expected ways.

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 short sentences, 'Find pet by ID.' and 'Returns a single pet.', both of which add essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and provides a clear outcome statement.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not mention error responses, prerequisites, or any constraints. A complete description should at least alert to possible failure modes (e.g., pet not found) to help the agent handle results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'petId' is the identifier used for lookup, but it does not explain the 'x-hapi-auth-state' parameter at all. The description adds little beyond what the parameter name already suggests.

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 the specific verb 'Find' with the resource 'pet' and the scope 'by ID', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like findPetsByStatus or findPetsByTags. The phrase 'Returns a single pet' reinforces the tool's specific purpose.

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 implies usage when you have a pet ID by saying 'by ID', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or list any exclusions. For a full guidance it would need to mention, for example, that this tool is for fetching a specific pet rather than searching by status or tags.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get user detail' but does not describe authentication requirements, error responses, or whether sensitive fields are filtered. There is no warning about rate limits or data freshness.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is redundant: 'Get user by user name' and 'Get user detail based on username' say essentially the same thing. One sentence would suffice, so the second sentence does not earn 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient. It covers the basic look-up purpose but omits return structure, error possibilities, auth requirements, and explanation of the optional header parameter. For a two-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

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 0%. The description adds meaning to the 'username' parameter (identifies the user) but completely ignores the optional 'x-hapi-auth-state' header parameter. No parameter format, default behavior, or interplay between parameters is explained.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('user') with the key parameter ('user name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getPetById and getOrderById by focusing on the user resource. However, it could further clarify whether it returns full user objects or selected fields.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like createUser, updateUser, or deleteUser, nor does it state any prerequisites or limitations. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It implies authentication but does not explain session creation, credentials handling, failure behavior, or the purpose of the x-hapi-auth-state parameter.

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 short but redundant ('Logs user into the system. - Log into the system.'), with the second sentence adding nothing. This is padded, not concise.

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 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the literal action, leaving the agent completely uninformed about inputs, outputs, or operational context, making it inadequate.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameter. It fails to clarify what username, password, or x-hapi-auth-state mean, how they interrelate, or expected formats.

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 clearly states the action ('Logs user into the system') with a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like logoutUser or createUser. However, the redundant second sentence adds no new information and prevents a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of preconditions (e.g., user already created), nor any exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and does not mention side effects (e.g., session token invalidation), authentication requirements, idempotency, or error behavior. This is a thin description for a mutation-like operation.

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 concise in length but redundant: 'Logs out current logged in user session' and 'Log user out of the system' convey the same meaning. The wasted second clause reduces overall effectiveness.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover preconditions, side effects, and when to use. It only provides a one-line action with no additional context, leaving significant gaps for a tool that clears user state.

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 0% for the single parameter 'x-hapi-auth-state', and the tool description makes no mention of it. The agent receives no explanation of its meaning or necessity, so the parameter semantics are entirely absent.

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 clearly states the action ('Logs out current logged in user session'), using a specific verb ('logs out') and resource ('user session'). It differentiates from siblings like loginUser by the action itself, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives. Not a pure tautology because it adds context about 'current logged in user session'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does imply it should be used when a user is logged in, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like loginUser. The agent is left to infer basic usage.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a write operation (placing an order) but does not mention side effects, required authentication (despite the x-hapi-auth-state parameter), or any consequences. The description is too minimal to satisfy the transparency burden.

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 short but redundant, with two clauses saying essentially the same thing. It could be reduced to a single phrase like 'Create a new order for a pet in the store.' The redundancy wastes a sentence without adding 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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested object, auth state, many related siblings), the description is severely under-specified. It doesn't explain what an order is, what parameters are needed, what the response will be, or any operational context. For a creation tool with this schema, far more detail is required.

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 has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not mention any parameters. It never explains that an order requires petId, quantity, status, etc., leaving the agent without semantic understanding of the input fields.

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 clearly states it places/creates a new order for a pet, which distinguishes it from siblings like deleteOrder, getOrderById, and updatePet. However, the phrasing is slightly redundant ('Place an order' + 'Place a new order'), but it still clearly identifies the action and resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as addPet, updatePet, or deleteOrder. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, so usage context is entirely absent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not clarify whether it is a partial or full update, authentication requirements, or error behavior such as what happens if the pet does not exist. It also does not specify how 'by Id' is encoded (path vs body).

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 redundant: 'Update an existing pet. - Update an existing pet by Id.' The second sentence adds minimal information. It is under-specified rather than concise, and the structure is poorly organized.

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 nested object parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no information about return values, error handling, or preconditions. This is insufficient for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially since the schema has low coverage.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain updatePetBody or x-hapi-auth-state. It merely repeats the tool's purpose without detailing parameter usage or types.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'existing pet', and mentions 'by Id' which identifies the target. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool updatePetWithForm, which also updates pets, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus updatePetWithForm or other update tools. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation (updates) but provides no details on prerequisites, error behavior, or response format. The second sentence is a paraphrase adding no behavioral insight.

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 redundant; the second sentence duplicates the first. It could be a single sentence. The repetition wastes space without adding 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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should explain when to use form data vs JSON (updatePet), and any side effects. It fails to do either. The context is incomplete.

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 0%. The description does not describe any parameters, leaving name, status, and petId undefined. The only hint is 'form data', which is not enough to understand parameter semantics.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('pet'), and notes 'with form data', which differentiates it from sibling 'updatePet'. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus updatePet or other alternatives. The description merely restates the function without providing decision criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key constraint that the operation requires a logged-in user, which is useful context. However, it omits side effects, reversibility, and response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, with the main action front-loaded and no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple statement, though it may be too terse for the tool's complexity.

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 a complex nested schema and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal contextual information. It mentions the auth requirement but lacks details on parameter usage, request/response behavior, and edge cases, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 0%, and the description fails to mention any of the parameters (username, updateUserBody, x-hapi-auth-state). It does not compensate for the schema's lack of explanatory text, leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('user resource'), distinguishing it from create/delete operations. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools, the resource is unambiguous.

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 provides a constraint ('can only be done by the logged in user') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createUser, deleteUser, or updatePet. No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only states the action 'uploads an image' without disclosing behavioral details such as authentication requirements, file format expectations, side effects on the pet record, or response structure.

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 short but redundant: 'Uploads an image.' and 'Upload image of the pet.' convey nearly the same information. While not verbose, the second sentence adds little value, resulting in a slightly inefficient structure.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter usage, authentication context, or what happens after upload, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, and the description provides no meaning for any of the 4 parameters (petId, uploadFileBody, x-hapi-auth-state, additionalMetadata). The description's mention of 'image' and 'pet' does not map to specific parameter roles.

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 clearly states the tool uploads an image for a pet, using the verb 'upload' and resource 'image'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like addPet or updatePet by explicitly mentioning image upload, though the phrasing is somewhat redundant.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like updatePetWithForm or addPet. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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