ISO country CH

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful facts: it is a pay-per-call service and 'Task text discarded' indicates data handling. However, it omits other operationally relevant traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, failure modes, and whether the returned artifacts allow a multi-hop MCP call.

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 compact and front-loads the action and subject. The final clause 'Task text discarded' is concise but ambiguous because there is no task parameter in the 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?

Despite having no output schema, no annotations, and nine optional parameters, the description does not explain the output shape, how to choose which parameter to populate, or what 'remote MCP hops' entail. It is therefore incomplete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 all nine parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no mapping from the parameters to the gateway lookup or the returned artifacts, but the schema's own 'discarded after' notes provide the key semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific action and resource: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)', and it lists the returned artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all focused on specific checks or hints rather than gateway discovery. It is not a tautology.

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 a use case ('Find a ... gateway'), so an agent can infer when this is relevant. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it, how it relates to the sibling tools, or what conditions should select one of the other tools. There is no explicit alternative routing or exclusion.

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 reveals that no browser is launched, but it does not say whether the check makes a network request, how 'can be opened' is determined, what side effects occur, or what the output represents. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety 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?

The description is short and front-loaded: two sentences with no filler, and each sentence adds information about either purpose or behavior. It is slightly under-structured for the complexity of the nine-parameter schema, but as pure conciseness it is strong.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It fails to explain what the tool returns, which parameter to provide, or what 'can be opened' means operationally. The broad schema makes the completeness gap even more noticeable.

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 its own description, so the schema already provides the baseline parameter semantics. The tool description itself adds little beyond the word 'URL' and does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters are relevant or how to combine them.

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 and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' The phrase 'No browser is launched' also helps distinguish it from browser-based alternatives like playwright-url-ok. However, the input schema exposes nine largely unrelated parameters (city, json, path, query), making the actual scope of the tool somewhat ambiguous despite the clear core statement.

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 'No browser is launched' line provides an implied usage context: use this when a lightweight URL check is desired without browser overhead. But it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as playwright-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch, and it offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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?

The only behavioral hint is 'Expression discarded', which might imply the input isn't persisted, but it's too vague to convey side effects, resource usage, or error behavior. No annotations exist to supplement.

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 terse (one short sentence), but it fails to cover the tool's complexity—with 9 parameters and no explanation of how they relate to the stated arithmetic purpose. It is concise to the point of being uninformative.

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 large schema, no output schema, and no supplementary annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'a+b' maps to, what the result is, or how the parameters are meant to be used, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description makes no mention of any parameters, and the schema's nine fields (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) all have descriptions unrelated to arithmetic. The description adds zero meaning to the parameter list.

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 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' which specifies an action, but the follow-up 'Expression discarded' is ambiguous and conflicts with the schema's unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, etc.), making it unclear what the tool actually 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the 27 sibling tools. The description gives no context about use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess.

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 only says the tool is a 'Public ... record', which weakly implies a read-only, static lookup, but it does not disclose output format, error behavior, side effects, or what happens with the nine input parameters. It is not contradictory, but it is largely opaque.

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 free of filler, which makes it economical, but it is a single noun phrase rather than a complete, structured explanation. It is concise at the expense of under-specification, so it does not fully earn its place as an actionable tool definition.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one line of description is insufficient context. The description does not explain what the returned record contains, why the parameters exist, or what distinguishes this tool within a large sibling set. The schema documents parameters, but the overall tool context remains incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description itself says nothing about parameters, but schema description coverage is 100%: all nine optional string parameters have individual descriptions, including notes like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'no disk access'. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies and the schema adequately carries the parameter-semantics load.

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 identifies a concrete resource—'Public ISO 3166-1 record for CH'—so an agent can infer the tool relates to Switzerland's country-code record. However, it lacks a verb such as 'returns' or 'gets' and does not clearly state what action the tool performs. It is more specific than a bare name but still a vague noun phrase.

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 cc-ch, what problem it solves, or how it relates to the many sibling tools. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context entirely.

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 transparency burden; 'Page content is not stored' is a useful behavioral disclosure about persistence. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as whether a network request is made, redirect/error handling, or any side effects, so transparency is only partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the privacy guarantee in the second sentence. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, a two-sentence description is not enough to invoke the tool correctly. It does not state which parameters are needed/ignored, what the return format is, or how this tool differs from fetch-status/normalize-url/web-fetch.

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%, meeting the baseline, and the description adds little parameter meaning beyond identifying URL as the input. It does not explain how the other eight optional parameters relate to the stated purpose, though their individual schema descriptions provide some semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete action (return) and resource (URL), and lists three specific outputs: host, scheme, and HTTP status. It is not a tautology and reads clearly, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling URL tools such as fetch-status or normalize-url.

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 explicit statement of when to use citation instead of the many URL-related siblings, and no alternatives or exclusions are named. The intended use must be inferred entirely from the output list, which is weak guidance 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 provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'No identifiers are retained,' and several schema fields echo discard behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the request is processed locally, whether any external calls occur, or what the output looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at two sentences with no filler. But the first sentence is under-specific, and the limited length could have been used to provide more useful context without becoming bloated.

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

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

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how to select among the parameter fields, whether multiple values can be passed, or what 'classified' means in practical terms. The well-described schema compensates only partially.

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 of the 9 parameters has its own explanatory text. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so 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 states a verb ('Show') and an object ('how this request is classified'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it is vague: it does not define what classification means, what categories exist, or how it differs from sibling tools like domain-shape, validate-json, or normalize-url.

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 any of the many sibling tools. The schema's 'discarded after' notes imply a one-shot classification use, but the description never states this or gives conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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 burden. It discloses a pure parsing behavior and a meaningful negative ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), but it does not state the return shape, error behavior, or whether non-host parameters are ignored. This is adequate for a simple splitter but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and the key non-goal both earn their place. No structural waste.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains only the hostname path. It does not specify the output format, how invalid input is handled, or whether the other schema fields are valid alternatives or ignored extras, so an agent cannot fully predict invocation results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the nine parameters already has a description and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning; an agent must infer from the 'host' field that it is the relevant input, while the other accepted fields remain ambiguous.

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 names a specific operation ('Split a hostname into labels') and a boundary ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which distinguishes it from enrichment/lookup tools. It loses a point because the input schema exposes nine unrelated optional fields (url, json, path, etc.), so the exact scope is not fully reconciled.

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 the tool: for hostname label decomposition when WHOIS/ownership data is not needed. It does not name alternatives or give explicit when-not conditions, and the broad schema leaves it unclear whether it should be chosen over normalize-url or other shape 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 fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions HEAD and status. It doesn't explain how the other parameters are used, what 'status' means, or whether side effects occur. The schema notes that some fields are 'discarded after the shape check,' but the description omits this entirely.

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's under-specified given the tool's complexity. It omits essential context, so the brevity is more a sign of incompleteness than efficient communication.

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

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

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a minimal statement about HEAD requests, failing to explain return values, parameter usage, or behavior. It is woefully incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 tool description fails to explain how the parameters relate to the stated purpose. The schema descriptions themselves are somewhat helpful (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint'), but the description doesn't clarify that this tool might be a multi-purpose checker. The disconnect between the URL-focused description and the diverse parameter list lowers the score.

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 gives a specific verb and resource, but the 9-parameter schema includes unrelated fields like city, zone, json, and query. This creates ambiguity about the tool's actual scope and doesn't distinguish it from siblings such as web-fetch or browser-url-ok, which likely overlap in function.

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, web-fetch, normalize-url). The description doesn't mention conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving an agent without direction.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It only discloses that the path is discarded; it does not say whether the tool validates, extracts identifiers, normalizes, mutates anything, or what it returns. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler words. It loses a point because 'Path discarded' is cryptic and would benefit from a short clarification, but it is structurally efficient.

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 exposes 9 optional parameters, has no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no information about which parameter to pass, what is returned, or how it relates to sibling shape-checking tools. This is far too little for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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. The tool description itself does not map the Figma URL to a specific parameter, and the schema descriptions are generic and partially unrelated to Figma ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'City name for a public weather hint'), so the agent still lacks clear parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('a Figma file URL'), which makes the core purpose fairly clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting other resources like GitHub or Jira. The appended 'Path discarded' adds an unusual constraint but does not obscure the main 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 implies when to use the tool: when a Figma file URL needs parsing. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related siblings like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape, and it does not mention any exclusions or alternative 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 carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'No disk access' is a genuinely useful guarantee that the tool is non-destructive and does not verify file existence. However, it does not disclose the return value, what 'safe' means, or error behavior, so transparency is only partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the 'No disk access' caveat is placed immediately after, earning its place. It is appropriately concise, though slightly terse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the return type or expected output (e.g., true/false) and fails to define what 'looks safe' means. The schema covers parameter usage, so invocation is guessable, but an agent cannot confidently interpret the result or know the exact safety criteria.

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 documents all parameters, including 'path' as 'File path to check', so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level guidance and does not clarify that the many unrelated optional fields (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) are irrelevant to this tool. Schema coverage is high, but the description provides no extra semantic 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 concrete verb and object: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' It adds a meaningful limitation, 'No disk access,' making it a read-only shape check rather than a filesystem operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the word 'path' and the no-disk-access note make the core purpose clear.

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 'No disk access' sentence implies this tool should be used only for syntactic or shape-based path checks, not for filesystem existence or permission checks. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to an alternative sibling tool, so the usage context is implied rather than 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, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says coordinates are returned. It does not mention that an external Open-Meteo call is made, how the input is interpreted, what happens for unknown places, or that several schema fields are described as 'discarded'.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core action and provider.

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 nine optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not help an agent choose the right parameter, understand the return value, or avoid misusing the tool alongside its siblings.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter semantics. The description never tells the agent which of the nine optional string parameters is the relevant 'place' value, leaving the schema's parameter descriptions to do all the work.

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 concrete output ('Latitude and longitude for a place') and names the provider (Open-Meteo), which gives the tool a clear core purpose. However, it does not distinguish it from the similarly named sibling weather-hint, and the nine unrelated optional parameters in the schema make it unclear which input corresponds to 'a place'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus weather-hint, timezone, or the many shape-validator siblings. There are no 'use this when...' statements, no exclusions, and no mention of what kind of place input is expected.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'parse,' which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavior on malformed or non-GitHub URLs, whether the URL is fetched or normalized, or that irrelevant parameters are discarded. The schema descriptions mention discarding, but the main description does not.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though somewhat too terse to fully support a tool with nine optional parameters 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides no return format, no error or validation behavior, no parameter mapping guidance, and no sibling alternates, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name and schema 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. The description adds the key semantic that a GitHub URL yields owner and repo, but it does not explicitly map the GitHub URL to the 'url' parameter or clarify how the other eight optional parameters relate to the tool's 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 ('parse'), a specific resource ('GitHub URL'), and the expected result ('owner and repo'). This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling shape tools like figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape by domain, even without explicitly naming them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when an agent has a GitHub URL and needs owner/repo extraction, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent can infer usage from the name and description, but there is no guidance for distinguishing it from normalize-url or other 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 carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool counts current stories and discards titles, which sets clear expectations about the output. It does not mention network dependency, failure behavior, caching, or rate limits, but the core behavior is reasonably transparent for a simple counter.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. 'Titles discarded' is a compact but valuable behavioral clarification.

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 count-only tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks an explicit statement of the return type, behavior on failures or network errors, and any explanation of how the many optional parameters relate to the tool's purpose.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema do most of the work. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance, and several parameters are marked as discarded or unrelated, leaving their connection to the HN count unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Count') and resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), and the second sentence clarifies that the tool returns a count rather than titles. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is clear and distinct from the other listed tools.

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 intended use is implied: select this tool when the agent needs the number of current Hacker News front-page stories. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, though 'Titles discarded' hints that this tool is not for retrieving story titles.

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 behavior itself, but it only states a category of data. It does not say whether names are returned as a list, whether inputs are ignored/discarded, or what side effects/errors occur; the schema's 'discarded after...' comments compound the ambiguity.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded with no filler, so it earns its place. However, it is too skeletal to serve as a complete tool definition, and a 7-word noun phrase is under-specification rather than effective concision.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that perform time operations, the description is far from complete. It provides no information about return values, invocation semantics, or how this tool relates to the clock-call workflow, leaving critical gaps.

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%, the description adds no meaning about how to supply parameters, and its timezone-domain claim clashes with schema properties like ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path. The mismatch leaves an agent without a usable parameter path for requesting timezone names.

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 that essentially restates the tool name iana-zones; it lacks a specific verb or action, so an agent cannot tell whether the tool returns, validates, or lists zones. It names a resource but does not differentiate itself from sibling tools timezone and utc-time.

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 'for clock calls' supplies a weak usage context, implying the tool should be chosen when IANA names are needed for time/clock operations. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of alternatives such as timezone or utc-time, so guidance remains suggestive rather than prescriptive.

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, and it only discloses that the result is a summary ('group counts only'). It does not explain how the robots.txt is fetched, which parameter supplies the URL, what happens on non-200s, or why several schema fields are discarded—leaving a significant transparency 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It loses a point only because it omits the parameter mapping that would make the concise statement usable.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete: it doesn't state which parameter selects the robots.txt, what 'group counts' means, or how failures are surfaced. The definition is not sufficient to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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 the schema has 100% per-parameter descriptions, the description does not connect the described robots.txt behavior to any parameter. The most plausible candidate, 'url', is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', not as the robots.txt URL, so the agent cannot reliably determine which field to populate.

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 ('Fetch'), a concrete resource ('public robots.txt'), and the exact output ('group counts only'). It is clear at face value, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling fetch/check tools such as web-fetch or fetch-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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings like web-fetch or domain-shape, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the action phrase, so an agent receives no routing help.

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?

The description discloses that the key is discarded, signaling a stateless, likely side-effect-free operation. It does not specify the return value or error behavior, which is a notable gap given that no annotations are present.

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 with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the discard behavior is presented as a compact second sentence, making the description optimally concise.

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

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

With eight unrelated schema properties, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must explain how to supply the Jira key and what result to expect. It does neither, making the tool effectively unusable as documented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description refers to a 'Jira issue key', but the input schema contains only unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) with no key field. The description does not map the Jira key to any schema property, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.

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' and a specific resource 'Jira issue key shape', which distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools. It does not define what a valid shape is, but the domain is 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?

The purpose implies when to use the tool: whenever a Jira issue key's format needs to be validated. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or contexts to avoid, leaving usage largely inferred.

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 discloses that the body is discarded, which is useful, but it does not state whether the tool performs a network fetch, whether it is read-only, how errors or redirects are handled, or any other side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool that likely contacts remote URLs.

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 filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about the body being discarded is placed immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the tool has nine optional parameters and several overlapping sibling tools. The description does not explain which parameter to supply, what the exact return format is, or how failures surface. For an agent to reliably invoke this tool, more context is needed.

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?

All nine parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents each parameter. However, many schema descriptions appear unrelated to the stated 'public library docs URL' purpose, so the description does not help the agent understand which parameter actually drives the tool.

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 concrete purpose: provide the HTTP status for a public library docs URL. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from generic URL fetchers by scope, and 'Body discarded' clarifies the output is only the status, not the page content. It stops short of 5 because it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'checks', though the intent is clear.

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 'for a public library docs URL' implies when the tool should be used, but it does not explicitly name alternatives among the many sibling tools or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out, which is adequate but not strong guidance.

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, and 'Values discarded' is a useful disclosure that values are ignored. However, it does not state the return value, whether nested keys are counted, or behavior for empty or invalid inputs.

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, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Both sentences earn their place, and the core behavior is stated immediately.

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 definition is too thin for a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. It never clarifies that the JSON object is the tool-call input object itself, nor does it explain nested-key counting or the output format; the schema's 'json' and 'path' value descriptions create ambiguity.

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%, the description adds important semantics: every parameter value is irrelevant and only the presence of keys matters. This overrides the value-level descriptions in the schema and clarifies why all properties are optional.

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 names a specific verb and resource: count keys in a JSON object, with the clarifying behavior that values are discarded. It is clear in isolation but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or the shape-check tools, and it leaves some ambiguity about which JSON object is being counted.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description simply states the operation, so an agent must infer when this tool is preferable to related sibling tools such as validate-json or shape checks.

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 transparency burden. It discloses two real behaviors: it returns origin/host/path and it drops query and fragment. However, it does not say whether the tool makes network requests, what happens on invalid/non-HTTPS URLs, or that the many extra schema parameters are ignored, so it is only partially transparent.

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 with the main operation front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes the key behavior immediately visible.

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 a simple core, the tool definition is incomplete for safe invocation: it has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description doesn't say which parameter is the intended input, how the other params relate, or what a call returns beyond a terse list of components. The mismatch between the schema's 'path' (file path) and the description's 'path' (URL path) is never resolved.

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 adds useful semantics for the URL parameter (query/fragment are stripped), but it does not clarify which of the nine optional params actually participate or resolve the confusing 'path' param ('File path to normalize') versus URL path in the description.

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 names a specific operation ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL') and a clear non-obvious behavior (dropping query/fragment). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling URL-shape tools such as domain-shape or figma-url-shape, so it loses the top point.

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 prefer this tool over any of the 27 siblings, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The description states what it does but does not say when to use it vs alternatives like web-fetch, citation, or domain-shape.

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 transparency burden. It does disclose one important behavior: no browser is launched, which is useful and non-obvious from the Playwright-based name. However, it omits whether a network request is made, whether the URL is modified or cited, what side effects occur, and what the response represents.

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?

At two short sentences, the description is tightly written and front-loads the core action. It earns its place by adding the key non-browser clarification. It is slightly under-specified in broader context, but this dimension is specifically about conciseness and structure, where it performs well.

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 input parameters and no output schema, this description is too thin to be complete. It does not state what the tool returns, which input is the intended primary one, how the check is performed, or how it relates to sibling browser tools. The schema covers parameters, but not the selection-and-invocation 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 every one of the 9 optional parameters is already explained in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema carries the load, so the baseline 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 uses a clear verb ('check') and a resource ('URL'), and the second sentence clarifies that no browser is launched, which separates it from browser-launching alternatives like browser-url-ok. It stops short of defining what 'can be opened' exactly means, so it is not a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings such as browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch. The phrase 'No browser is launched' implies a lightweight check, but the description never states the intended use case, exclusions, or a preferred alternative.

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 side effects and safety itself. It does state that the query is discarded, which hints at non-retention, but it does not say whether the operation is read-only, what output is produced, or what happens when no query is supplied.

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 two sentences are tight and front-loaded with no filler, but the brevity omits essential invocation details (return type, required input, which parameter is used). It is concise at the cost of 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not say what the tool returns, whether query is required, or how to treat the other eight fields, leaving an agent to guess at a correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents all nine parameters, including the query parameter as 'Search text; discarded after the length check.' However, the description adds no guidance about the fact that the eight non-query parameters are irrelevant to this tool, so parameter meaning is only 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 names a specific operation—counting characters—and a specific resource (a search query), and adds that the query is discarded. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling URL/domain/status tools, though it does not explicitly say that an integer length is returned.

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 statement about when to use this tool versus a sibling, no exclusions, and no context about when a character count is needed. The only usage signal is implied by the description and tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not disclose side effects, return format, or how the catalog responds to the listed parameters. The word 'catalog' implies a read-only reference operation, but this is never stated explicitly.

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 as a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It provides no structured guidance, no mention of inputs, and no differentiation from siblings, so the brevity does not earn its place.

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

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and seven seemingly unrelated parameters, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain how inputs like `city`, `feed`, or `json` relate to HTTP status codes, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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 describes all seven parameters individually, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' essentially restates the tool name `status-catalog` and does not state a clear operation (e.g., 'returns', 'looks up'). It identifies a resource but fails to specify what the tool actually does with it or how it differs from sibling tools like `fetch-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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `fetch-status`, `browser-url-ok`, or `web-fetch`. The description only states a vague catalog purpose and leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Prompt discarded,' which hints at the tool's quirk of ignoring input, but does not explicitly state that all parameters are discarded. This partial disclosure is insufficient but not misleading.

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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, with no filler. Each sentence conveys essential information: the action and a key behavioral trait. This is an ideal length for a simple tool.

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 that returns a fixed template and discards all input, the description, combined with the schema's per-parameter discard notes, is nearly complete. It could be more explicit that all parameters are ignored, but the schema already conveys this. The lack of an output schema is acceptable since the template is described.

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 detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, each explicitly noting the value is discarded. The description adds only 'Prompt discarded,' which is somewhat redundant with the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This clearly communicates what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the name and action are distinctive 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when or why an agent should choose it.

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 behavioral burden. It states the core read behavior, but it does not disclose invalid-timezone handling, output format, or whether unrelated schema fields are ignored—context an unannotated tool would benefit from.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to communicating the tool's purpose, making it easy for an agent to scan quickly.

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 is minimally viable for a simple read-only time lookup, but the lack of annotations, lack of an output schema, and presence of nine optional string parameters leave return format, invalid-zone behavior, and the relevant parameter somewhat underspecified.

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 schema's zone parameter already says 'IANA timezone name', and the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. It also does not single out zone among the nine optional fields, which would have helped disambiguation.

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 resource and scope: current time for a named IANA timezone. The IANA qualifier distinguishes it from related time/zone tools such as utc-time and iana-zones, though it uses an implied 'get' rather than an explicit verb.

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 use case is implied: use this tool when you need the current time in a specific IANA timezone. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it mention sibling tools like utc-time or iana-zones as alternatives.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp' and does not reveal that the nine optional parameters are largely ignored or 'discarded' according to the schema, nor does it clarify side effects, output format, or that no arguments are needed.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could earn a higher score with a bit more contextual detail without becoming verbose.

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 the tool having 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description only provides the basic output statement. It does not explain that all parameters are optional, whether they influence the result, what timestamp format is returned, or how this tool differs from timezone and iana-zones, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 parameters themselves are documented and the baseline is 3. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning, and some schema descriptions, like 'IANA timezone name' for zone, are ambiguous for a UTC-time tool because it is unclear whether the parameter affects the output or is ignored.

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 the current UTC timestamp, which is a specific, identifiable behavior. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like timezone or iana-zones, leaving some ambiguity about which time-related tool is appropriate.

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 utc-time versus alternatives such as timezone or iana-zones. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where a different tool should be chosen.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the body is discarded, which is a useful side-effect note, but it omits whether validation is local, what the return value looks like, and how the many unrelated parameters factor in.

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 with no filler; the key behavioral note is front-loaded. It is concise to a fault given the missing context, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only addresses the JSON validation aspect and the discarding side-effect. The purpose of ref, url, city, feed, host, and path is entirely unexplained, making correct invocation and expectation-setting impossible.

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 29% (low), so the tool description should compensate by clarifying parameters, but it does not. The word 'body' loosely maps to the 'json' parameter, yet nothing is said about ref, url, city, feed, host, or path, leaving those parameters unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the operation ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and implies the tool's core function. However, the term 'body' is ambiguous given the schema includes a dedicated 'json' parameter, and no explicit differentiation from sibling tools is provided.

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 browser-url-ok or web-fetch. No conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer appropriate 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that the tool appears to discard all parameters except city, or any details about network side effects, output format, or error behavior. The schema hints at discard behavior, but the description does not.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured to flag the relevant parameter.

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 output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what constitutes a valid invocation, which parameters matter, or what the response contains. The presence of many seemingly unrelated parameters makes this gap more significant.

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. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which already explains that most parameters are discarded after checks.

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: current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It clearly indicates what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings such as geo-hint, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.

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 usefully discloses that the body is discarded and that only status and content type are returned. It does not mention redirects, error handling, rate limits, or whether any side effects occur, so the disclosure is only partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core result is front-loaded, and 'Body discarded' is a critical qualifier delivered immediately.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not clarify which parameter to supply, whether multiple parameters can be used together, or what the response shape looks like. The gap between the URL-only description and the nine-parameter schema is significant.

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 parameter-level guidance, and the schema's url description ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') slightly conflicts with the fetch-focused tool description. Still, the schema itself documents each parameter adequately.

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 observable result: HTTP status and content type for a public URL. It also adds the key limitation that the body is discarded, which distinguishes it from a generic page-fetch tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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 web-fetch versus related tools such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. The phrase 'public URL' implies a scope restriction, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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 disclosure burden. It does add one useful behavioral trait, that the title is discarded after the call and implies a read-only existence check, but it does not mention network access, response shape, or error behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no filler. It is too terse relative to the seven-parameter schema and leaves the title parameter unexplained, so it under-specifies rather than being merely concise.

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

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

There is no output schema, no example, and no mapping of the title to an accepted parameter. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool from the description alone, especially since the schema parameters appear unrelated to a Wikipedia title.

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 is well-documented for its own parameters, but none of them is a 'title' parameter. The description refers to a title that is absent from the schema and gives no hint which of the seven properties should be used, so the description actively misleads rather than clarifies 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 specific action and resource: verifying whether a Wikipedia title exists, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that check URLs, JSON, or file paths. However, the description does not mention what the check returns or which schema field holds the title, so some ambiguity remains.

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 instead of alternatives or when not to use it. The description only states the operation, leaving the agent to infer that it is for Wikipedia-title verification.

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