QrVerloz

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: permanent vs one-time storage, retargetability, account plan limits, and authentication requirement. It also specifies the markdown table output and instructs the agent to preserve it exactly. Minor gaps around error conditions or rate limits prevent a perfect score.

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?

Three dense sentences with no wasted words; the first sentence states the core action, and the subsequent sentences earn their place by explaining user modes and output format. Excellent front-loading and structural efficiency.

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 two user modes and a specialized output format, the description covers the essential context: authentication split, persistence, retargeting, and output handling. It could mention error outcomes or exact response content, but the absence of an output schema makes the markdown instruction particularly valuable.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with clear explanations of the label and URL format. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('Create a new QR code') and immediately distinguishes two user modes (authenticated vs anonymous), which differentiates it from sibling update/delete/list/scan tools. The purpose is unambiguous and specific to the creation action.

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 explains when authenticating vs anonymous invocation applies, and implies that retargeting is a separate operation (update_qr_target). It also provides explicit output handling guidance. However, it does not name sibling tools directly or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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. It states that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, requires authentication, prevents accidental/injected deletions via title matching, and refuses mismatches. This is strong transparency, though it doesn't mention return behavior or side effects beyond scan history deletion.

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 slightly lengthy (5 sentences) but every sentence contributes essential safety and workflow information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then systematically explains prerequisites and failure conditions.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all necessary context for a destructive tool: the action, irreversibility, required confirmation step, and authentication. The workflow is fully specified, leaving little room for misuse.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds critical semantics for confirm_title, explaining that it must match exactly and why, plus when to supply qr_code_id vs short_code. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 ('delete') and resource ('QR code and its scan history'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_qr_code and update_qr_target. It also conveys the permanence of the action.

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 on when to use the tool and explicitly instructs to call get_qr_code or list_qr_codes first to retrieve the exact title. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., 'use update_qr_target for modifications') but provides sufficient guidance for correct 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 carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is required and specifies the returned data scope, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The 'Get' verb implies non-mutating, but it is not explicit.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and content, the second gives usage guidance and authentication. Every word earns its place, front-loaded efficiently.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It tells what information is returned and when to use it, covers authentication, and provides enough context for an AI agent to invoke it correctly. Minor lack of response format or error handling details, but not critical.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric for 0 params, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-related detail because none is needed, but it does not detract from the baseline.

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 retrieves account details, including current plan, QR code usage, and feature availability. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account details'), and the content distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on individual QR codes or scans.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before create_qr_code to check remaining capacity, or to confirm which features are active on your plan.' It lacks when-not or alternative tool references, but the primary use case is clear.

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 present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the pre-formatted markdown table with exact fields, instructs to display it verbatim, and notes the authentication requirement. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup the core behavior is well conveyed.

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 composed of four short, purposeful sentences: purpose, output format, display instruction, and authentication. There is no filler; the field list is necessary because there is no output schema.

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 with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, output format, field names, and auth. The only gaps are the ambiguity around neither parameter being required while the description implies at least one is needed, and no mention of not-found behavior. These are minor for the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that qr_code_id and short_code are alternative lookup keys ('by its internal ID or short code'), a relationship not explicit in 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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and clearly identifies the resource ('a single QR code') and the lookup keys (internal ID or short code). It distinguishes itself from list_qr_codes by emphasizing 'single' and from get_qr_scans by focusing on code details rather than scan statistics.

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 'a single QR code' implies this tool is for individual lookups, and the return description indicates code details. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_qr_codes for multiple codes or get_qr_scans for analytics, leaving usage guidance implied rather than directly stated.

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. It discloses the return format (a pre-formatted markdown table), lists the exact fields, instructs the agent to display the table verbatim, and notes authentication requirements. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent handle the response correctly.

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, with each sentence serving a purpose: purpose, return format, handling instruction, and authentication. The field list is long but necessary to convey the table structure, so it remains appropriately sized.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential return details and an explicit handling instruction. It does not mention error cases (e.g., QR code not found), but this is a minor gap given the tool's 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 schema already documents the single parameter (qr_code_id) with a clear description ('Internal UUID of the QR code'), and the description does not add additional detail about the parameter itself. Therefore it meets the baseline 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the total lifetime scan count for a QR code.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_qr_code or list_qr_codes by focusing solely on the lifetime scan metric.

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 purpose is so specific that the intended use is clear: to obtain a QR code's lifetime scan count. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names and the description's focus provide enough context to avoid confusion.

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?

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses several behavioral traits: the response consists of one pre-formatted markdown table per QR code with the exact display instruction 'do not reformat or summarise', and authentication is required. However, it does not mention that results are paginated via page/limit parameters, which is a notable omission for a 'list all' 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 very concise: two sentences that state purpose and then the return format/display instruction. Every sentence adds value, and the instruction about displaying tables exactly as received is crucial for agent behavior.

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 information: what it does, what it returns (fields and format), and the authentication requirement. Given that there is no output schema, this is quite helpful. It is missing explicit mention of pagination limits, but for a list operation with optional parameters, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 (page and limit) with their defaults and maximums, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered 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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'QR codes' and scope 'in your account', which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_qr_code (singular fetch) and mutation tools like create_qr_code, delete_qr_code, and update_qr_target.

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 states the tool lists all QR codes, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the phrase 'all QR codes' implies it is for enumeration rather than singular retrieval. Still, it does not address pagination or the difference from get_qr_scans, so it is not fully explicit.

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 and delivers: 90-day token expiration, permanent QR deletion after ~180 days, one-time token display, and the requirement to claim an account before expiration. This is exceptional transparency for a zero-parameter 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 longer than a single sentence but every sentence earns its place: purpose, warning, action item, and next step. The 'IMPORTANT LIFETIME WARNING' is clearly highlighted, and there is no 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what the token does, its limits, expiration behavior, one-time visibility, and how to use it in MCP config. An agent has everything needed to invoke and consume the result.

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 parameters and 100% coverage (empty object), so there is nothing to document; the baseline 4 applies. The description adds useful context about the token's 5-QR limit and Authorization header usage, which is beyond 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 opens with 'Get a free API token — no account or email required,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling QR code management tools. It establishes the token as a prerequisite for create_qr_code.

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 clearly states the next step: 'Add it to your MCP client config under Authorization: Bearer, then call create_qr_code.' It also explains when to use the account-claim alternative for persistent codes, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools by name beyond create_qr_code.

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 disclosing behavior. It explicitly mentions that the operation requires authentication, that it does not touch the printed image, and that the success response is a pre-formatted markdown table that must be displayed as-is. This covers key behavioral aspects, though it could elaborate on reversibility 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence contributes: the main action, the 'print once' benefit, parameter selection, response format instruction, and authentication requirement. No unnecessary fluff, and the structure flows logically.

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, so the description's mention of the markdown table response compensates for that. The description covers the core behavior, parameter selection, and authentication. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that at least one of qr_code_id or short_code is required, though this is implied by 'Accepts either.'

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 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that either qr_code_id or short_code can be used, a relationship not captured in the schema. It also clarifies that short_code comes from the redirect URL, adding context beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 purpose: changing the destination URL of an existing QR code without affecting the printed image. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_qr_code and delete_qr_code, and the phrase 'Change the destination URL' is a specific verb+resource combination.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to redirect a QR code after printing) and explains how to specify the target (via qr_code_id or short_code). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear and it includes the prerequisite of authentication.

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