ISO country CU

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the output content and states that task text is discarded, which is useful privacy-related behavior. However, it does not say whether the tool makes network calls, whether parameters actually affect the result, or what side effects or errors might occur.

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 only two sentences and wastes no words; the main purpose and output categories are front-loaded. The final clause 'Task text discarded' is terse but informative. It loses one point because 'Monid' and 'remote MCP hops' are not explained, leaving some terminology cryptic.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain how to invoke the tool: which parameters to provide, whether any are sufficient, or whether they are all ignored. The per-parameter 'discarded' notes hint that most inputs are irrelevant, but the description does not connect them to the stated purpose. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call from this definition.

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; each parameter already has its own description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters are relevant to finding Monid. Therefore, the description does not go beyond what the schema already provides.

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

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

The description uses a clear verb ('Find') and names a specific resource: a public pay-per-call tool gateway called Monid. It also enumerates the outputs (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops), which makes the tool distinct from the utility-focused sibling tools. However, the phrase 'Task text discarded' and the unexplained 'Monid' make the purpose slightly less crisp than it could be.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative, and it names no exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied context is that it relates to Monid or pay-per-call gateways, but that is not stated as a routing rule. An agent choosing among many siblings would need to infer the intended use.

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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one useful trait, no browser launch, but omits critical behavioral facts: whether a network request is made, whether the check is purely structural, what side effects or limitations exist, and why most input parameters are marked 'discarded after the check.'

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral caveat rather than repeating the tool name. 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?

Despite a seven-parameter schema and no output schema or annotations, the description is only 13 words. It does not explain what 'can be opened' means, what kind of result is returned, how to specify the URL, or why unrelated parameters exist. This is not enough context for an agent to reliably select and 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 input schema already provides descriptions for every parameter, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify which parameter is the primary URL to check, despite there being seven parameters of widely different types. According to the baseline, 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 names a specific action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and the resource (URL). The added sentence 'No browser is launched' helps distinguish it from browser-launching siblings like playwright-url-ok, but 'can be opened' is ambiguous: it could mean syntax validation, DNS resolution, or HTTP reachability, so it does not fully pin down the behavior.

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 caveat 'No browser is launched' clearly signals this is a lightweight check, not a full browser-open operation, which implies a usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over fetch-status, web-fetch, domain-shape, or normalize-url, nor does it describe any conditions or exclusions for use.

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 disclosure is 'Expression discarded,' which hints at a stateless operation. However, no annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it fails to disclose what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, how it uses the many heterogeneous inputs, or whether it performs validation versus evaluation.

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 only two short sentences and is front-loaded with the core verb and object. It earns its place as a concise statement, though its brevity comes at the cost of critical alignment details.

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 annotations, no output schema, and roughly nine parameters, the description is far too minimal. It omits what the result looks like, which parameter carries the expression, how the other parameters relate to the tool, and any side-effect or error behavior, so an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool.

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 descriptions individually cover each parameter's apparent purpose, giving a high schema coverage baseline, but the tool description adds no mapping between those parameters and the claimed arithmetic operation. It introduces an 'expression' concept that has no corresponding field in the schema, making parameter usage more confusing rather than clearer.

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 and format ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but it is misleading: the input schema contains no expression or operand parameter and instead lists unrelated string parameters like url, city, json, and path. An agent cannot determine what to pass to perform the described arithmetic, so the stated purpose does not match the tool's actual 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling, nor any mention of which parameter corresponds to the arithmetic expression. The description gives no context for selecting it among alternatives like domain-shape, file-path-ok, or validate-json.

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 adds a useful behavioral guarantee: 'Page content is not stored,' which is meaningful because no annotations are present. It does not disclose other behaviors such as whether the tool performs a live network request, what data is sent, or how errors are surfaced, so it only partially covers the burden.

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 wasted words. The primary output is front-loaded, and the privacy-relevant note is placed second without bloating the description.

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

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

The description covers the basic return values and one behavioral trait, but with no annotations, no output schema, and a large parameter surface, it leaves notable gaps: it does not state which parameters are actively used, how failures are handled, or how this relates to sibling URL/status tools.

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 all nine parameters. The description's mention of 'a URL' reinforces the role of the url parameter but does not add meaning beyond the schema or clarify that the other parameters are irrelevant to the main output.

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 host, scheme, and HTTP status') and a clear resource ('a URL'), so the agent knows what the tool does. It is not strong enough to earn a 5 because it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as fetch-status or web-fetch.

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 usage context is implied: an agent should call this when it needs URL metadata such as host, scheme, and HTTP status without retaining page content. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch.

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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It does add one useful guarantee—'No identifiers are retained'—but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes external calls, what side effects occur, or what the classification output looks like. This is too thin for a 9-parameter tool.

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

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

The description is brief and front-loads the purpose before the privacy caveat. Both sentences carry distinct information with no fluff. It is slightly under-sized for the tool's complexity, but the structure itself is clean and 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?

Given nine optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain the classification result, how the parameters are combined, what return value to expect, or why an agent would invoke this over a sibling. The schema documents parameters individually, but the overall tool behavior remains 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the only added statement, 'No identifiers are retained,' reiterates the 'discarded' notes already present in the parameter descriptions. This is acceptable but not additive.

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 and object—'Show how this request is classified'—so it conveys a general classification purpose. However, it never defines what 'classified' means, what classification categories or dimensions exist, or how it relates to the tool name 'compatibility'. It also does not distinguish the tool from sibling classifiers like domain-shape or search-query-len.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The privacy note 'No identifiers are retained' hints at a safe context but does not state scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent has to infer when this classification tool is the right choice.

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 does disclose the core transformation (split into labels) and an explicit non-goal (no WHOIS/ownership enrichment), which is useful. It omits return format, invalid-input behavior, and the fact that several schema parameters are discarded, so coverage is 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and every phrase earns its place. It is slightly under-specified for a tool with nine optional parameters, so it is not a 5.

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 schema exposes nine optional parameters with no required ones and no output schema, so an agent needs more guidance about which parameter to supply and what will be returned. The description only addresses hostname splitting and leaves the role of ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, and query unexplained, which is incomplete for safe 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 baseline is 3 even without description-level parameter help. The phrase 'hostname into labels' adds meaning to the host parameter beyond its schema description, but the other eight optional parameters are not addressed by the tool description at all.

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-resource pair: 'Split a hostname into labels,' which is clear and distinct from a full WHOIS lookup. It doesn't differentiate from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape, and it ignores eight of the nine schema parameters, so it isn't 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 when-to-use guidance or any mention of alternatives. The clause 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a boundary, but it never says when to choose domain-shape over normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or the other shape tools, leaving the agent to infer 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, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool uses HEAD and returns only a status, which indicates a non-content-fetching operation. However, it does not mention redirects, timeouts, error behavior, or the fact that many schema parameters appear to be discarded or used for unrelated checks.

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 states the method, resource, and return scope efficiently.

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

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

Given nine parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain what the returned status looks like, which parameter is the primary input, or why the other parameters exist. The mismatch between description and schema is a significant completeness gap.

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 every parameter. The description adds only the 'public URL' constraint and 'status only' scope, but it does not clarify which of the nine parameters are actually used or ignored. This is acceptable but does not exceed the baseline.

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

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

The description states a concrete action: 'HEAD a public URL and return status only.' However, the input schema lists nine unrelated parameters (ref, city, json, path, zone, query, etc.) with their own checking semantics, so the tool's actual scope is ambiguous. It is not a tautology, but it does not clearly reconcile the stated purpose with the broad schema.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like web-fetch, browser-url-ok, or playwright-url-ok. The phrase 'return status only' implies a lightweight status check, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals one behavioral trait ('Path discarded') but does not state whether the URL is validated, normalized, or merely inspected, nor what it returns or how malformed input is handled.

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 only two short sentences with the main operation front-loaded and no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the purpose or to a behavioral constraint.

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 annotations, and no output schema, this description is too terse to be complete. It does not explain which parameter to use for the Figma URL, what shape or value is returned, or how the Figma file key is derived, leaving the broad parameter list ambiguous.

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 even without parameter details in the description. The description hints that `url` is the relevant input and that path-like content is ignored, but for a schema with nine unrelated optional parameters, it does little to help the agent select the correct one.

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 verb ('Parse') and the object ('a Figma file URL'), making the tool's core purpose recognizable and distinct from generic URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The additional 'Path discarded' note adds a scope detail, though the description does not say what the parse result is, so it stops short of 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?

The description implies the tool should be used when a Figma file URL needs parsing, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not say when not to use it or how it differs from sibling shape-checking and URL 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds one useful behavioral disclosure: 'No disk access,' which indicates a pure syntactic/heuristic check. However, it does not explain what criteria determine safety, what the return value is, or how errors are reported.

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 additional behavioral note about no disk access 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify the expected input, the meaning of 'safe', or the result format. The cluttered schema makes this deficiency more severe, as the agent receives no guidance on which parameters actually matter.

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%, which would normally set a baseline of 3, but the schema is badly polluted with irrelevant parameters (url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) from sibling tools. The description does nothing to clarify that only 'path' is relevant, leaving the agent unable to distinguish the meaningful input from the noise.

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: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' This is clear and distinct from URL-focused siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the other '-ok' tools, so it stops one step short of full differentiation.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like browser-url-ok or wiki-title-ok. The description implies a use case for validating a path, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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, but it only states the lookup and provider. It does not explain the output format, failure behavior, or that most of the nine input parameters appear unrelated and 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 focused sentence with no filler, and the main behavior is front-loaded. It is concise, though its brevity creates gaps that are penalized in other dimensions.

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. An agent cannot confidently determine which argument to supply, what the return shape will be, or how the many non-city parameters are handled.

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 of 3 applies even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. However, the description does not clarify which parameter represents the 'place,' leaving the agent to infer that 'city' is the relevant input.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, giving a specific resource and result. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like weather-hint, but the geospatial output makes the core purpose understandable.

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 weather-hint, timezone, or other lookup tools. No context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided beyond the bare statement of purpose.

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 clearly signals a read-only parsing operation and names the expected outputs (owner and repo), which is transparent for a simple utility. However, with no annotations, it does not describe invalid-input behavior or how unrelated schema properties are treated, leaving some behavioral burden unmet.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, object, and source are all immediately clear. Nothing unnecessary is included.

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 nine optional parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, this single sentence is insufficient for an agent to call the tool with confidence. It should specify which parameter receives the GitHub URL and what the parse result looks like, especially since the schema descriptions are generic and inconsistent with the stated 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 baseline is 3; the description adds GitHub-specific meaning that the generic 'url' description ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') lacks. But it never explicitly pins the GitHub URL to the 'url' property, so an agent must infer the correct parameter among nine optional fields.

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?

States a concrete action ('Parse') and target ('owner and repo') from a clearly scoped source ('GitHub URL'), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape. It does not merely restate the tool name.

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 it—when a GitHub URL must be decomposed into owner and repo—but it provides no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives. With many sibling shape/check tools and no exclusions, selection relies heavily on inference.

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 does disclose a key behavioral trait: titles are discarded, so the result is a count rather than a story list. It does not clarify what happens with the nine optional parameters, whether a network fetch occurs, or how failures are surfaced.

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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by one clarifying behavioral note. There is no filler 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?

Despite the simple surface purpose, the tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain whether parameters affect the call, which one is relevant, or what the return value looks like beyond being a count. This is incomplete for the schema complexity present.

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 parameter-level meaning and does not state whether any of the nine optional parameters are relevant or ignored, which prevents a higher 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 clearly states a specific operation ('Count'), a specific resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), and an output constraint ('Titles discarded'). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like 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?

The word 'current' implies a live, not historical, front-page count and the narrow resource makes intended usage inferable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of strong routing 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what happens when the tool is called, whether it returns a list, filters input, performs a side effect, or requires authentication. It only describes the subject matter, not the tool's 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 short, but brevity is not the same as conciseness: it is under-specified. One noun-phrase sentence does not carry enough functional information to earn its place as a usable tool description.

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, nine optional parameters, and a vague noun-phrase description, the definition is far from complete. The agent gets no idea of the return value, call pattern, or which sibling tools are preferable.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the nine parameters, but they are mostly about refs, URLs, feeds, JSON, and paths, none of which relate to IANA timezone names or clock calls. The description adds no guidance on which parameter to supply, and its stated domain does not match the parameter set, leaving the agent unable to select the right input.

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 resource ('Common IANA timezone names') and gives an intended context ('for clock calls'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it lacks a verb and therefore does not state whether the tool lists, retrieves, validates, or resolves these names, and it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like timezone or 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' weakly implies when the tool could be relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusions. An agent is left to guess how this tool relates to the timezone and utc-time siblings.

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 openly states an external read operation ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and limits the result to group counts. It does not disclose failure modes, rate limiting, or what happens when robots.txt is absent, but the core behavior is clear.

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 entire description is one purposeful sentence with no filler. The action, target, and output scope are front-loaded and 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. An agent is not told which parameter selects the robots.txt URL, what 'group counts' look like in the response, or how errors are handled, so it leaves too much to guess.

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 no parameter-level detail and notably never states which of the nine properties actually supplies the robots.txt target, which leaves the schema's generic 'url'/'host' descriptions doing 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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('a public robots.txt'), and the exact output ('group counts only'). That output qualifier differentiates it from broader siblings like web-fetch or fetch-status, even without naming alternatives.

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: call this when you need robots.txt group counts. However, the description offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never points to alternatives for full content or status checking.

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's 'Key discarded' is a useful disclosure that no persistent key is stored. However, it does not disclose the return contract (boolean vs thrown error, response shape), and no output schema exists, so an agent cannot predict what the tool returns.

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 text is short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. But it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema, so the brevity is incompleteness rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 arbitrary optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is insufficient. Missing are the input parameter to use, expected return value, accepted Jira key patterns, and when to prefer this over sibling shape validators.

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%, but the schema lists nine unrelated optional string fields and no 'key' field; the description provides no mapping between 'Jira issue key' and any parameter. The only plausible field, `ref`, is labeled 'Git ref name', which creates confusion rather than resolving 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 names a specific verb ('check') and a specific resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape. It falls short of a 5 because it never specifies what the expected key format is or which input parameter carries the key.

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 about when to use this over alternatives; it doesn't name siblings or conditions, and it doesn't say to use it before fetching or citing a Jira issue. The phrase 'Key discarded' implies a one-off validation, but that is not enough.

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 full disclosure burden. It does reveal one useful behavioral trait—the response body is discarded—which helps agents understand the return value. However, it does not explain what happens for invalid or missing inputs, whether a network request is actually performed, or how status values are determined.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, and 'Body discarded' is a separate meaningful behavioral note. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not say which parameter(s) to supply, what the HTTP status semantics are, or how this tool relates to the long sibling list. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions a 'URL' while the schema exposes many unrelated optional fields such as city, json, timezone, and query. An agent gets no extra help from the description in choosing among the nine parameters.

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

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

The description states a concrete action: return the HTTP status for a public library docs URL, and clarifies that the body is discarded. This makes the core purpose reasonably clear, but it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which likely also return status-like results.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'public library docs URL' implies a use case, but the description never names alternatives or tells an agent to prefer this tool over fetch-status, web-fetch, or other siblings. 'Body discarded' hints at a distinction but does not make it actionable.

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 disclosure burden. It does explicitly state that values are discarded, and several parameter descriptions repeat that inputs are discarded after checks. However, it does not describe the return format, error behavior for invalid JSON, or whether all parameters are accepted and ignored.

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 economical and front-loaded: the core operation comes first, and the value-discarding behavior is given in a short second sentence. It is not bloated, though a slightly longer description clarifying the input mapping would be more helpful for this complex 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?

The tool has multiple optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to explain the invocation contract more fully. It does not state which parameter contains the JSON object, what the returned count looks like, or how to distinguish this tool from similar 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions do not align with the main description. The `json` parameter is described as 'JSON text to validate,' not as the object whose keys are counted, and the other parameters appear unrelated, so an agent cannot confidently determine which value to pass.

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 operation—count keys in a JSON object—and explicitly says values are discarded, which differentiates it from siblings like validate-json. However, it does not specify which schema parameter corresponds to 'a JSON object,' leaving some ambiguity given the many unrelated optional fields.

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 alternatives such as validate-json or normalize-url. The description only says what the tool does, not when it should be chosen or when it should be avoided.

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, and it does disclose a meaningful behavior: query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not mention what happens for invalid or non-HTTPS URLs, whether the operation is purely local, or the exact shape of the returned origin/host/path structure.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the key exclusion. There is no filler 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?

For a nine-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It gives the happy-path behavior but omits return structure, error behavior, and any clarification that only the URL parameter is needed. The schema partially compensates, but the overall definition is only minimally complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter-level detail and does not clarify that `url` is the relevant input among the nine optional parameters, but the high schema coverage supports a baseline score of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states what the tool does: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. It is specific about the output and transformation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling URL-related 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the output fields 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that no browser is launched, but does not disclose whether network requests are made, what side effects occur, or why several input parameters are discarded. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that checks URL accessibility.

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 wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral distinction. It is highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 a confusing schema with parameters like 'city', 'feed', 'json', and 'ref' that seem unrelated to checking a URL. The description does not explain why these are present, what the return value looks like, or what 'opened' means precisely. Without an output schema or richer description, an agent is under-equipped to use this 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 adds no information about parameters, but the input schema provides descriptions for all seven parameters. Since schema coverage is effectively 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not clarify the relationship between the odd collection of parameters and the stated purpose.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' The second sentence, 'No browser is launched,' differentiates it from likely sibling tools like browser-url-ok. However, 'can be opened' is somewhat ambiguous about whether it means HTTP reachability, URL syntax, or something else.

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 statement 'No browser is launched' implies this tool is for non-browser URL checks, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when to use this over sibling tools. The usage guidance is present only by implication through the sibling list, not by explicit 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the query is discarded, which is useful data-handling context, but it says nothing about return format, side effects beyond discarding, or how other input fields are treated.

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 terse sentences with the main action front-loaded and the discard behavior kept as a separate clear note. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted wording.

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 full schema coverage, the description does not tell the agent which of the 9 optional properties to supply, what the output format is, or how this tool relates to its siblings. With no annotations and no output schema, the calling contract is left mostly to inference from the `query` parameter 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 every parameter including `query` already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds little beyond reinforcing that the search text is counted and discarded, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('characters in a search query'), and adds the non-obvious note that the query is discarded. It is clear what the core operation is, though it does not differentiate itself from sibling counting or shape-checking 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context hints. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the single-sentence description, which is not enough for reliable selection among many similar siblings.

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 merely calls the tool a 'short catalog', implying a read-only lookup, but it does not state side effects, output format, or how inputs are handled.

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, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine heterogeneous parameters and no other context.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence about HTTP status codes is incomplete. The description does not explain what the parameters are for, what the tool returns, or how the catalog relates to inputs like city, feed, json, and path.

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 all nine parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the 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 names a concrete resource: a catalog of common HTTP status codes. It is clear enough to convey the general purpose, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, what scenarios it fits, or how it differs from alternatives such as fetch-status or web-fetch.

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 transparency burden. 'Prompt discarded' is a meaningful disclosure that the tool will not process user input. However, it does not explicitly state that all nine optional parameters are ignored, that the operation has no side effects, or that the returned template is static.

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 and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, and 'Prompt discarded' adds a key caveat without waste. It is concise, though slightly cryptic, since it never explains what 'prompt' refers to in the context of this tool call.

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 core behavior is clear and the schema fills in parameter details, but the description omits usage guidance, the fact that all parameters are optional and ignored, and the nature of the returned template. Without annotations or an output schema, this leaves the agent with some uncertainty about invocation and expectations.

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 itself adds no parameter-level meaning; it does not mention any of the nine parameters or clarify that they are optional and effectively unused.

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 distinguishes it from the many sibling validation tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of top marks.

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. 'Prompt discarded' hints at what not to expect, but the description never says 'use when a thinking template is needed' or names any sibling selection criteria.

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 is the only source of behavioral information. It does convey that this is a read-only lookup and states the core behavior, but it omits invalid-zone handling, output format, and DST/alias behavior, so 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is excellent for scanning. It is concise, though the concision comes at the cost of missing critical invocation details.

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 output schema, no annotations, and a large parameter list, the description does not explain the return value or map any parameter to the stated purpose. The severe description-schema mismatch leaves the tool 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 visible schema parameters ('ref', 'url', 'city', 'feed', 'host', 'json', 'path') are unrelated to a timezone lookup, and the description does not name the parameter that accepts the IANA zone. High schema coverage cannot compensate because the schema does not contain the needed parameter.

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 identifies the tool's output ('current time') and input domain ('named IANA timezone'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from zone-listing or UTC-only utilities. It would be a 5 if it used an explicit verb such as 'return' and named the sibling alternatives.

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 usage is implied: use it when the agent needs the current time for a particular IANA timezone. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and does not mention alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones.

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 only the main output, omitting that the seven input parameters are checked and then discarded. With no annotations present, this significant behavioral trait is left unexplained, creating a gap between the simple description and the complex schema.

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 short with no wasted words, but it under-specifies a tool with seven parameters. The brevity comes at the cost of clarity about how and why inputs are used.

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 unexpectedly rich schema and lack of output format specification, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the parameters, whether they are required, or what format the timestamp takes.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all seven parameters, including notes about discarding and no disk access, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema already covers the semantic 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 clearly states the resource and operation: returning the current UTC timestamp. It is distinguishable from siblings like timezone, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 such as timezone or the many shape-check siblings. The input schema hints at additional validation behavior, but the description offers no context on intended usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the body is discarded, which is useful, but it does not explain what the tool returns for valid versus invalid JSON, whether it errors, or any side effects. Some transparency is present, but significant behavioral details are missing.

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 and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, and the disposal behavior in the second. It is appropriately concise, though it could earn a 5 by also adding a one-line statement about the return value.

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 a rich 9-parameter schema and no output schema, so the description should clarify which input is 'the body' and what the tool reports back. It does neither explicitly, though the `json` parameter description partially fills the gap. The description is adequate but incomplete for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a documented meaning. The description itself does not map 'body' to the `json` parameter or clarify how the other eight parameters relate to the validation task, but the schema compensates. 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and its key behavioral note that the body is discarded. This distinguishes it from general fetch or validation tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling validation-shaped 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 description implies the tool is for JSON validation tasks, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives like file-path-ok, fetch-status, or search-query-len. There are no stated exclusions or comparison to sibling 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Open-Meteo source, implying a network lookup, but does not disclose units, failure modes, whether input is discarded, or any side effects. The schema descriptions hint at discarded inputs, but the tool description itself remains 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose without redundancy, which is appropriate for a simple lookup 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent can expect from the result. It says 'current temperature' but not units or response format. Additionally, the nine-parameter input schema is confusingly broad, and the description does not clarify that only city matters, making the tool under-specified for safe 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 baseline is 3. The description names city, which matches the key parameter, but it adds little beyond the schema's own city description. It also does not clarify why the schema contains eight other optional parameters or which ones are relevant for this 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 specific resource and operation: current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like geo-hint, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or use a strong verb like 'returns' or 'fetches'.

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 case is implied: call this when you need the current temperature for a city. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternative tools such as geo-hint or web-fetch.

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, 'Body discarded' is a useful behavioral disclosure and the only substantive safety/privacy trait. It does not mention redirects, network behavior, timeouts, or auth expectations, leaving much of the behavioral burden unmet.

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 first states the action and resource, the second states a key behavioral caveat. 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?

Despite only a single-line description, the context shows nine optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain why so many parameters exist or which one to pass for a URL fetch, so an agent is left with significant 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies; individual parameter descriptions already exist. The description adds the purpose 'HTTP status/content type' but does not clarify that 'url' is the parameter to use, and the schema's own url description ('normalize or cite') conflicts with the fetch intent.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns HTTP status and content type for a public URL and that the body is discarded, giving the agent a specific operation and output. It does not name or distinguish siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

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

It implies when to use it: when you only need HTTP status and content type and do not need the body. It provides no explicit comparison to sibling tools or when not to use it, so usage guidance is mostly implied.

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 adds only that the title is discarded after the call, which hints at statelessness but says nothing about what results are returned, whether any network interaction occurs, whether the check is read-only, or what error behavior looks like. This is insufficient for an agent calling the tool blindly.

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, using only two sentences with no obvious filler. The second sentence adds a useful statelessness hint, though it could have been folded into the first. The brevity is good, but the missing operational detail and schema mismatch keep it from being fully effective.

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 complex situation: there are eight input parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description gives no indication of which parameter is the title, what the return value means, or whether the tool even uses the parameters for its stated purpose. The description is fundamentally incomplete and likely to mislead an agent.

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 detailed descriptions for every parameter, but none of them mentions a Wikipedia title. The description introduces a 'title' concept that does not map to any schema field, so an agent cannot determine which parameter to populate, despite the high schema coverage. The description adds no usable parameter semantics and actually creates 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 names a concrete action and resource: checking whether a Wikipedia title exists. However, it is nearly a restatement of the tool name, and it never explains which input parameter holds the title, leaving the actual operation ambiguous against an eight-field schema that has no 'title' property.

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 usage context is provided. There are no conditions for when to choose this tool instead of sibling tools such as web-fetch, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok, and no exclusions are mentioned. The only implied guidance is the generic 'check whether a title exists,' which is too thin to support tool selection.

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