ISO country AD

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 provides none: no indication of side effects, return values, or why nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) exist. The description does not even clarify whether this is a read-only lookup or a validation 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 (8 words), but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It is not front-loaded with key details—there is no action, no scope, and no exclusions. Every word is present, but the sentence fails to convey the tool's function.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It gives no hints about expected inputs, return format, or typical use cases. Even with complete schema descriptions, the mismatch between the stated purpose and the parameter list leaves the agent without enough context to call 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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description, the tool's stated purpose (timezone names) is disconnected from these parameters. The description adds no value in linking 'ref', 'url', 'city', etc. to IANA zones, leaving the agent confused about why these are inputs at all. The schema descriptions themselves are generic and do not clarify the tool's intent.

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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase, not an action. It hints at a resource or reference, but never states what the tool does with these names (e.g., list, validate, or retrieve). It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', which are clearly time-related actions.

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 given on when to use this tool versus any of its 29 siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions. An agent has no way to know if this is meant to supply a timezone list for clock calls or if it should be used directly for time operations.

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 'Values discarded', which implies the tool only returns a count, but it does not explain what happens with non-JSON inputs, what the return value represents for other parameters, or how the tool handles multiple inputs. The description is too minimal to inform the agent of side effects, error conditions, or the nature of the operation beyond a vague key-count.

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 short sentences), which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no annotations. Conciseness is not the issue; the lack of necessary content is. It earns a middle score because it is efficient but sacrifices completeness.

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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool does with each parameter, what it returns (beyond a vague key count), how it handles multiple inputs, or any behavioral details. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool for most of the parameters listed in the schema. The description is critically incomplete for the tool's apparent complexity.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The main description adds a bit of context (that it counts keys in a JSON object) but does not clarify how the other eight parameters relate to that goal. The parameter descriptions themselves are informative (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'), but the tool description does not integrate them or explain the overall mechanism, so it adds limited value 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 states a specific verb and resource (count keys in a JSON object), but it is misleading because the input schema accepts nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query), many of which have nothing to do with JSON objects. The description fails to convey the tool's actual scope, which appears to be a generic shape checker based on the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'discarded after the length check'). It does not distinguish from siblings like validate-json or search-query-len.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred over siblings such as validate-json or search-query-len. The parameter descriptions hint at multiple use cases (URL, city, RSS, timezone, etc.), but the tool description never addresses how to choose among them.

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 full behavioral burden. It only discloses 'No browser is launched,' but fails to mention that most parameters are 'discarded after the shape check' or that no disk access occurs (though these are in the schema). It does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor what the tool does with the other parameter types.

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 with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the completeness problem.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It only addresses URL checking, leaving the agent unaware of how to use the tool for other input types (city, feed, json, etc.) and what the expected outcomes are. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 each parameter has a description that adds semantic value (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify how parameters relate to the stated purpose.

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 and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and notes no browser is launched, but the input schema exposes 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.) that are not mentioned. This makes the actual scope ambiguous and potentially misleading about what the tool validates.

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 the many siblings (e.g., browser-url-ok, fetch-status, normalize-url, validate-json). There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits.

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 notes 'Query discarded', implying a side-effect-free operation for the query parameter, but says nothing about the other 8 parameters, potential rate limits, authentication, or the exact nature of the operation beyond character counting. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 (7 words) and free of fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and does not cover the tool's behavior across its many parameters. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with 9 inputs and no annotations.

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 (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how multiple parameters are handled, what the return value is, or any edge cases. An agent would have to infer too much to use it 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 100%, so all 9 parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions 'query' without elaborating on the other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 verb ('count') and resource ('a search query'), but the tool actually accepts 9 parameters and the description only mentions 'search query', making the scope ambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools that might also perform length checks, such as hn-front-count or memory-key-count.

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. The sibling list includes many shape-check and counting tools, but the description gives no exclusions or conditions for selection.

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. The one-line description only states the output ('Current time') and does not disclose that the other eight parameters are 'discarded after the shape check' as noted in the schema, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or response format. The description is silent on what happens if the zone is invalid or if other parameters are passed.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema). It front-loads the core action but omits necessary context such as how the other parameters are treated and what the response looks like. The brevity is not effective conciseness; it is a lack of necessary detail.

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 is a tool with 9 optional parameters, no required ones, no output schema, and a description that only explains the timezone aspect. The agent has no idea why the other parameters exist, what the response format is, or how to correctly invoke it. The description is grossly incomplete for the actual schema, making the tool effectively unusable without opening the schema and guessing.

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% - every parameter has a description, including the 'zone' parameter which is labeled 'IANA timezone name'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already provides full parameter documentation, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not enhance or clarify parameter 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 states a clear verb ('Current time') and resource ('named IANA timezone'), but the input schema contains 8 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, query) that suggest the tool actually performs generic shape-checking across many domains. This creates confusion about the true purpose and fails to distinguish it cleanly from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, despite the 'utc-time' sibling being a clear 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. For example, there is no mention that utc-time should be used for UTC or that this tool is only for named zones. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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 carries the full burden. The schema reveals that all 9 parameters are 'discarded' or 'no disk access', but the description does not disclose this behavior. An agent would not know that passing any of these parameters has no effect, which is a significant behavioral trait. The description also does not mention return format or error conditions.

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 a single concise sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is so minimal that it under-specifies the tool's behavior, but for conciseness alone it earns a high 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain why the tool accepts those parameters, that they are ignored, or what the return value looks like beyond 'timestamp'. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's interface or side effects from this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no information about parameters, and even implies a no-argument call, which is misleading given the 9 optional parameters. However, since the schema already documents the parameters well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states what the tool returns: the current UTC time. It is not a tautology and uses a specific resource ('UTC timestamp'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone', which might also deal with time, 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 alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer it over 'timezone' or any other sibling. The description gives no context on typical use cases or exclusions.

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