visa-requirements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses billing cost (0 credits) but not safety profile, return format, or any side effects. For a read-like tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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 short sentences, both purposeful: the first states the purpose, the second billing. No wasted words, and the key info is front-loaded.

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 list tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what it returns (destinations country codes) but doesn't describe the format, pagination, or any caveats, leaving some uncertainty.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.

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 lists destination country codes, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like post tools, though not from get_v2_passports, but the resource type is distinct enough.

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 instead of siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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 transparency burden. It discloses billing (0 credits) and a V2 grouping, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authorization requirements, or output format. For a simple list tool, this is a moderate gap.

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, both delivering relevant info: purpose and billing. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned and the billing cost. It could mention that it is read-only, but 'List' implies that. Overall, adequately complete for its simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to add beyond the empty input schema. The description focuses on the data resource, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool, meeting the baseline for this case.

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 a list of passport country codes. The phrase 'Group: V2' adds a categorization, and the resource 'passports' distinguishes it from siblings like get_v2_destinations.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated purpose: use it to get passport country codes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like get_v2_destinations, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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. It discloses that the operation is a 'show' (read-like) and adds billing cost per call, which is valuable. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication, or limits. This is adequate for a simple read, but not rich, earning a 3.

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 and gets to the point, with two sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes cost info. However, the typo 'Bing' instead of 'Billing' and the awkward '1 Credits' reduce polish, preventing a perfect score.

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 simple tool scope, the description covers the basic function and cost, but omits context about the return format, the meaning of 'V1', and prerequisites. With no output schema or annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about expected output structure. It is adequate but not thorough, so a 3.

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 already describes both parameters with examples, covering 100% of schema descriptions. The description does not add extra parameter information; it only references 'Passport holder Group: V1,' which is ambiguous but not a parameter explanation. Per guidelines, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, so this is earned.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Show the visa requirements for Passport holder Group: V1.' It clearly indicates the tool reports visa requirements, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like post_v2_visa_check. Thus it scores 4—clear but no sibling distinction.

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 over siblings or alternatives. It only states the tool's function and billing cost. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it, so it falls to 'no guidance' (score 2).

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 full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'Show the color' but does not explain what the color represents, how the result is delivered, whether it is a map image or data, any prerequisites (e.g., passport format), or potential errors. Billing and group info are not behavioral transparency.

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 (three sentences), but two of those sentences are metadata ('Group: V1' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits') that are not core to the tool's operation. While concise, it forfeits crucial details; the structure is adequate but not front-loaded with the most important behavioral 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 simplicity (one parameter) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain how to interpret the output (what 'color' means), any limitations, or how it differs from similar tools. An agent could not reliably select and invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 zero description coverage, and the description only implies the 'passport' parameter by saying 'Passport holder.' It does not specify the expected format (e.g., ISO code, country name) or any constraints. The example 'US' in the schema is not referenced in the description, so the agent gets minimal guidance.

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's function: showing the color of visa requirements for a passport holder, matching the title MapColor. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like post_v2_visa_map or post_v2_visa_mapall, which likely have similar purposes, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 the other map-related siblings (e.g., post_v2_visa_map, post_v2_visa_mapall). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits the use case.

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, and the description gives no information about side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating. The phrase 'Make your custom' suggests a create operation, but the description does not elaborate on consequences or 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 extremely brief, consisting of one sentence plus billing info. While it is concise, it omits essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

Given the presence of a nested object parameter and the complexity of a ranking system, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, the meaning of 'Group: V2', or how the weights are applied, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use 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 schema includes a single 'body' parameter with an example of weights, but the description does not explain the meaning of these weights or how they influence the ranking. The tool description adds no value beyond the parameter's existence, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's role.

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 'Make your custom passport index/rank' which indicates creating a custom ranking, but it lacks specifics on what the tool actually does, such as the input format or the output. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name, though the intended purpose is somewhat discernible.

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 like post_v2_visa_check or post_v2_visa_map. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool would be appropriate.

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 disclose safety and side effects. It mentions billing per call, which is useful, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what happens on invalid inputs. Missing critical behavioral context for a tool with no annotations.

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 core purpose. The billing mention is relevant. No unnecessary fluff, but could have included more behavioral context in the same space.

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 moderate complexity (nested object param, no output schema), the description is minimal but provides the essential purpose and billing. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, and usage guidelines, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 100%, so the schema documents the 'body' parameter. The description adds the example structure in the schema itself, and the description does not add much beyond that. It does not clarify the expected format of passport and destination codes beyond the example.

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 shows visa rules for a passport to destination, using 'Show' as a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Group: V2' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', but does not explicitly contrast with other visa-related tools like post_v2_visa_map.

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?

It implies usage by describing the function (show visa rules) and mentions the billing cost, but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like post_v2_visa_map or post_v2_passport_rank_custom. No 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 the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a color and costs 1 credit per call, implying a read-only operation and providing billing context, but it does not mention authentication, errors, or side effects.

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 short, purposeful sentences: the first states the tool's output and scope, the second states cost. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 description covers the essential output type and cost, and the schema fills in the body example. However, with no output schema and no annotation context, it leaves ambiguity about request semantics and how this tool differs from the 'mapall' sibling.

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% and includes an example request body, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that the tool returns a color for the primary visa rule Group V2. The verb 'Return' and the resource scope are specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling post_v2_visa_mapall.

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 about when to choose this tool over siblings like post_v2_visa_mapall or post_v2_visa_check. The usage is only implied by the purpose statement, with no exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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 adds billing information ('Billing per call: 1000 Credits') but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what response shape to expect, or what 'Group: V2' means.

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 and includes an operationally useful billing note without unnecessary elaboration. The fragment 'Group: V2' reads awkwardly but does not add significant bulk.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: it states what data is returned and mentions cost. However, it lacks any explanation of the map data format, the meaning of 'Group: V2', or what distinguishes this endpoint from the similarly named post_v2_visa_map, leaving notable gaps in context.

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?

With zero parameters and fully covered schema, the description has no parameter details to compensate for. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description's mention of 'all passports' clarifies the scope of the invoked result.

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 ('Show') and names a clear resource ('data for map for all passports'), so the core purpose is understandable. However, 'Group: V2' is cryptic, and differentiation from sibling post_v2_visa_map is only implicit via 'all passports' rather than explicit.

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 about when to use this tool versus post_v2_visa_map, post_map, or the other sibling tools. The phrase 'for all passports' weakly implies a use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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