ISO country AM

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 of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions that task text is discarded and some parameters are discarded after checks, but it does not disclose whether the tool makes external network calls, requires authentication, or has any side effects. It only says 'Returns connection methods' without detail. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and outcome. It is concise with no wasted words, and it conveys the essential information efficiently. The mention of example tasks and the note about discarded text are both relevant and placed appropriately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain how to specify a task beyond listing example task types. It does not describe the structure of the returned 'connection methods' or how the parameters relate to the task selection. Given the complexity and lack of structured output information, the description is too sparse for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description in the schema (e.g., 'city' for weather, 'query' for search). The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond that; it merely mentions that task text is discarded, which is already reflected in the parameter descriptions. The description does not explain how parameters map to the mentioned task types beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific purpose: finding a public pay-per-call tool gateway for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice. It also notes that it returns connection methods, which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform specific tasks directly (e.g., weather-hint, search-query-len). This is more than a tautology and gives the agent a concrete understanding of what the tool does.

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 for generic task discovery but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the specific sibling tools. It gives examples of task types but does not say 'use this when you need a generic gateway, otherwise use the dedicated tool.' The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it's adequate but not strong.

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 adds one behavioral note ('Page content is not stored'), but omits critical traits: which parameters are discarded, whether network calls are made, and the behavior for non-URL parameters. It also fails to clarify that many parameters are validation-only as implied by the schema, leaving the tool's actual behavior ambiguous.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose, which is structurally efficient. However, the brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail—it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It earns a middle score for being tidy but inadequate.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description is grossly insufficient: it does not explain the purpose of the other 8 parameters, how they relate to the stated output, or how to choose the correct input. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'a URL' without specifying the 'url' parameter or how other parameters interact. It neither contradicts nor enhances the schema, so a baseline score 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 states a clear verb ('Return') and resource (host, scheme, HTTP status for a URL), but it is ambiguous which of the 9 parameters corresponds to the URL. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'fetch-status' or 'normalize-url', and the description implies the tool only handles URLs while the schema includes many non-URL parameters (city, zone, query, etc.), making the purpose unclear.

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 when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or which sibling to prefer. The description provides zero context for tool 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 must carry all behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it performs a HEAD request and returns a status. It does not disclose that many parameters are discarded after a 'shape check,' that some checks may not involve network calls, or what the returned status actually means. Minimal and insufficient.

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 drastically under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and numerous siblings. It lacks structure or any informative breakdown, so it does not earn the conciseness credit.

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 parameters, 28 siblings), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the general purpose (a multi-input shape checker), how to choose among parameters, what 'status' refers to, or any error conditions. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based on 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%, and each parameter has a brief description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'), which adds some meaning. However, the tool description does not tie the parameters together or explain how they relate to the stated HEAD operation, so the description adds little 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 'HEAD a public URL and return status only,' which is a clear action for the URL case, but the input schema lists 9 unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone, etc.) that are not mentioned. This is misleading because an agent would assume the tool only works on URLs, yet it accepts many other input kinds, making its actual purpose ambiguous.

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 its many siblings (browser-url-ok, validate-json, normalize-url, etc.). There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits a given request.

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 behavioral traits. The only behavioral note is 'Body discarded,' which hints that the response body is ignored, but it does not clarify whether the tool makes a network request, how it handles timeouts, or what happens on failure. It also does not state any side effects or safety properties, leaving the agent without essential context for a network-touching 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 short (one sentence) and front-loads the main idea, so it is concise in size. However, conciseness should not come at the expense of utility; the brevity here omits essential context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently clear.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's overall behavior, the role of each parameter, the return format, or any constraints. An agent has no basis to select or invoke this tool correctly. The single sentence provides almost no operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's individual meaning. However, the description adds no semantic linkage between the parameters and the stated purpose. It does not clarify which parameter (e.g., 'url') is the 'library docs URL' or how the others are used, and the mismatch between the narrow description and broad parameter set actively misleads.

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 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL' but the input schema contains 9 parameters including city, feed, json, zone, and query, which are unrelated to a library docs URL. This mismatch makes the actual purpose ambiguous—it cannot be inferred what the tool does with the other parameters. It fails to distinguish from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which also check HTTP status.

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 description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling tools like normalize-url or web-fetch. The presence of multiple URL-related siblings makes this omission significant.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that query and fragment are dropped, which is a start. It does not explain what happens with invalid URLs, whether it fetches the URL, how it handles the other parameters (e.g., city, feed, json) that are present in the schema, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant 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 very concise: a single sentence. That is positive for conciseness. However, for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, the brevity becomes under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded with the core action, but it lacks the structure needed to clarify the tool's full 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the extra parameters, the output format, error behavior, or how the tool handles different input types. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. It does not identify which parameter is the primary URL input (likely 'url'), nor does it clarify how the other parameters relate to the stated purpose. The schema itself has descriptions like 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call,' which are confusing and not tied to URL normalization. The description fails to resolve this confusion.

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: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.' This is specific and names a resource. However, the input schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.) that are not explained in the description, creating ambiguity about the tool's true scope. It does not differentiate from sibling URL tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape.

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 description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or which sibling tools it competes with. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient given the sibling list includes several URL-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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'No browser is launched,' which is a useful note, but it fails to disclose that all parameters are discarded after their respective checks, that the tool performs shape or length validations, or what it actually returns. The single behavioral note is insufficient for a tool with such a broad parameter set.

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 (two sentences) and the key statement is front-loaded, which is positive. However, it is too terse to be useful for a tool with nine parameters and multiple sibling tools; the brevity sacrifices necessary context, making it feel 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 tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the rich set of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's multi-purpose validation behavior, what constitutes a successful check, or how the URL check relates to the other parameters. An agent cannot call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 provides 100% coverage with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), so the schema already explains the individual parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters relate or which one is central, so it neither compensates for nor exceeds the schema's 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 states 'Check whether a URL can be opened' with a specific verb and resource, but the input schema includes nine diverse parameters (city, timezone, JSON, file path, etc.) that clearly indicate a much broader validation purpose. This mismatch makes the stated purpose misleading and vague, as it does not reflect the actual scope of the tool.

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 use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., browser-url-ok, fetch-status, normalize-url). The description offers no context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without any routing information.

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 does mention that the query is discarded, which is a useful privacy/retention detail. However, it says nothing about side effects, network access, resource usage, or whether it reads any of the other eight parameters. This is minimal coverage for a tool with such a broad parameter list.

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 sentence with no fluff, making it very concise. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, so while it is efficient in wording, it is not appropriately sized in terms of information content. Still, conciseness itself is achieved.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only explains the tool's action on 'query'. It does not explain the role of the other parameters, what the tool returns (e.g., character count), or whether it performs any validation. This is severely incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially given the ambiguous parameter set.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a descriptive comment. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only highlights 'query'. Since the schema already documents all parameters adequately, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, and the description adds no additional value.

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 and resource: 'Count characters in a search query.' This is specific enough to differentiate from siblings like 'memory-key-count' (counts memory keys) or 'hn-front-count' (counts items), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The added 'Query discarded' gives a secondary hint about data handling.

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. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it applies.

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 all behavioral disclosure. It only notes that the 'body is discarded', which is a minimal side-effect statement. It does not describe output format, error handling, or whether validation is strict/lenient, leaving significant uncertainty.

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 (one sentence), which is structurally efficient, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no other context. It does not front-load the critical parameter or usage details, so the brevity works against usability.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to specify which parameter is the input, what the result looks like, how errors are communicated, or how it differs from sibling validation tools. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the description alone.

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 already documents all parameters. However, the description refers to a 'body' without mapping it to the 'json' parameter or any other field. It fails to clarify which parameter is the JSON input, and the presence of 9 seemingly unrelated parameters adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 ('check whether a body is valid JSON') but the term 'body' is ambiguous and does not map directly to any parameter in the schema. It does not differentiate from sibling validation tools (e.g., file-path-ok, browser-url-ok) that might also validate formats.

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. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisite steps, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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, but it reveals nothing about side effects, data handling, or outcomes. It does not mention that parameters like 'ref' and 'json' are 'discarded after the shape check' or that city is 'discarded after the call'—these behaviors are only visible in the schema. No behavioral context is added beyond the one-line weather claim.

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 sentence, which is concise in word count, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It omits critical information about the tool's multi-purpose nature and the fact that most parameters are discarded. Brevity here sacrifices substance, making the description insufficiently structured for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a description that covers only one use case, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does with the other parameters, whether it returns different results based on input type, or what the output looks like. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool for anything beyond a simple weather query.

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% (all 9 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it only mentions 'city', but the schema already describes that parameter. Since it neither contradicts nor supplements the schema, a 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 states a specific action ('Current temperature for a city') but ignores the tool's broader scope, as evidenced by 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query). It misleads an agent into thinking the tool only handles weather, when the schema suggests it accepts many other input types. This is more than vague—it is actively misleading about the tool's full 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 27 siblings (e.g., geo-hint, lib-docs-hint). It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent has no basis to decide if weather-hint is appropriate for a given request beyond the narrow weather mention.

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