ISO country CZ

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that task text is discarded and hints that several inputs are discarded after checks, which is useful. But it does not state whether the call is safe/read-only, whether external costs or side effects occur, what happens to the URL/host inputs, or any rate-limit or caching 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and it leads with the primary action and result. The phrase 'Task text discarded' is cryptic but brief; overall it is concise without being padded.

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, 9 optional parameters, and 26 sibling tools, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain which parameters to populate, what the returned CLI/skill/hops look like, whether the tool is read-only, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding to 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 each of the 9 parameters already has its own description; the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance and does not clarify which parameters are meaningful inputs versus discarded placeholders, though the schema descriptions are individually adequate.

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 ('Find') and resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)') and lists the returned artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops), making its function reasonably distinct from sibling URL/validation tools. However, jargon like 'Monid' and 'remote MCP hops' is unexplained, which slightly weakens clarity.

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 siblings, nor are any alternatives or exclusions mentioned. The intended usage is only implied by the name and the cryptic reference to Monid, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate call 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that no browser is launched, but not whether a network request occurs, whether the check is syntactic or performs an actual fetch, what happens for non-URL parameters, or what the return value indicates. The schema's 'discarded after the shape check' notes further complicate the behavior without explanation.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a relevant caveat. Both sentences earn their place, and there is no redundant wording. However, it is somewhat underspecified for a tool with nine parameters, though that issue is better captured under contextual completeness.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry substantial contextual weight. It fails to explain what output the agent can expect, which parameter is relevant in which scenario, and what 'can be opened' means operationally. This is not enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in varied situations.

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 main description adds little beyond the word 'URL' and does not explain how the nine parameters relate to the check. The schema itself documents each parameter, but the tool description does not help an agent choose among 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 specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' The phrase 'No browser is launched' helps distinguish it from browser-based siblings like playwright-url-ok. However, it does not reconcile this URL-focused purpose with the schema's nine unrelated parameters, so it is not fully 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 description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'No browser is launched' only implicitly suggests a lightweight check, but it never names other tools or conditions for selecting this one. An agent would have to infer the intended use case from the tool name and 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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Expression discarded' hints that the input is not retained, but the description does not state side effects, return behavior, permissions, or why/whether the expression is discarded. This is thin for an eval-style 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?

Two very short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. 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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is not enough. Missing information includes which parameter holds the expression, what callers should expect back, and what 'discarded' means in practice.

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 meaning and, more importantly, fails to connect 'a+b style arithmetic' to any of the nine schema parameters, but that gap is not contradicted by the description itself.

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 (evaluate arithmetic expressions) and is distinguishable from the sibling shape-check/URL tools, none of which claim arithmetic evaluation. However, it stops short of a full 5 because 'Expression discarded' is ambiguous and no described parameter obviously carries the expression.

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?

Use is implied: an agent would reach for it when an arithmetic expression like a+b needs evaluating, and no sibling covers math. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance, and the schema's unrelated parameters make it unclear which inputs are relevant.

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 add one useful trait: 'Page content is not stored,' which suggests a privacy-safe read operation. But it omits other relevant behavior such as whether a live HTTP request is made, how failures or redirects are handled, and how the multiple optional schema 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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the extra privacy note earns its place by adding behavioral context without bloating the text.

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 description is too thin. It covers only the URL use case and does not explain what the tool does when other parameters are supplied or whether the return shape is consistent across inputs. An agent selecting this tool for a non-URL input would be misled.

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 high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the URL focus, but the schema includes several other optional parameters such as ref, city, feed, host, json, and path. The description does not clarify whether these are alternative modes or auxiliary inputs, and therefore under-describes the actual parameter space.

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: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is clear enough for an agent to know the core function. However, it does little to distinguish this tool from overlapping siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, and the tool name 'citation' doesn't reinforce the stated 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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. 'Page content is not stored' hints that this is not the tool for retrieving page content, but it never names siblings or gives criteria such as 'use fetch-status for status-only checks' or 'use normalize-url for URL normalization.' The usage context is mostly left for the agent to infer.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It does add a meaningful privacy guarantee ('No identifiers are retained') that aligns with the 'discarded' notes in the schema. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, or how the classification is computed, so the disclosure is incomplete.

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, and the primary action is front-loaded. While it is terse, the brevity is a conciseness strength rather than a structural problem.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what classification categories exist, what result the agent should expect, or how multiple parameters should be handled. This leaves the tool significantly under-specified for an agent deciding whether and how to call 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%, and each parameter already has an explanatory description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema 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 provides a verb ('Show') and an object ('how this request is classified'), so it is not a pure tautology, but 'classified' is left undefined. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling shape-checking tools such as domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or validate-json, all of which also classify aspects of an input.

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 classification/shape tools. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or hints about which parameter to provide or when this entry point is preferable.

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 clearly identifies the core behavior (splitting hostnames) and an important exclusion (no WHOIS/ownership data), but it does not describe error behavior, return structure, or what happens with the other accepted parameters.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and including only one meaningful scope qualifier. It earns its place and stays focused.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to explain the overall call pattern. It only addresses hostname splitting and does not clarify the roles of the other parameters or what the agent should pass to get the intended result, leaving the tool under-specified.

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 an explanatory description. The tool description adds little beyond suggesting that the 'host' parameter is the relevant one, but it does not need to repeat schema-level details.

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 operation, splitting a hostname into labels, and clarifies that it does not provide WHOIS or ownership data. It is clear and actionable, though it leaves open how the many other parameters in the schema relate to this purpose.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or github-repo-shape. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a syntax-only scope, but it does not give an agent a clear decision rule or prerequisites.

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 disclose the core behavior (HEAD request, public scope, status-only result), which is enough to understand the basic side-effect profile. However, it does not define what 'status' means, how redirects/errors are handled, or how the nine optional parameters 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?

One sentence, method first, no filler. Every word contributes: HEAD (method), public URL (scope), status only (output).

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description gives no guidance on parameter selection or interaction, what happens when no URL is supplied, or the shape of the returned status. An agent would be guessing on important invocation details.

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 guidance in the description. The description's only param hint is 'public URL', which points at `url`, but the schema describes `url` as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', leaving ambiguity about which parameter is actually HEADed.

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 precise action (HEAD), a clear target (a public URL), and an explicit output restriction ('status only'). This also distinguishes it from siblings like web-fetch (body fetch) and browser/playwright URL checks (browser-level OK checks).

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

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

The description clearly implies the tool is for lightweight status checks where no body is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over web-fetch, browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or status-catalog, and it gives no exclusions.

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 must disclose behavior itself. It reveals one trait—'Path discarded'—but does not state whether this is a network call, what it returns, how invalid URLs are handled, or whether it has side effects. This is insufficient for a parse/check tool with no output 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?

Two very short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place; the description is concise even though it is underspecified 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?

The tool has no annotations, no required parameters, no output schema, and a broad nine-parameter schema, so the description carries a heavy burden. It covers only the basic purpose and one discarded field, leaving return semantics, invocation requirements, and alternative routing undefined. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the key fact that the URL should be a Figma file URL, but it does not name the parameter to use or clarify how the nine optional arguments relate to the tool; the 'Path discarded' note is the only param-level hint. Overall, it provides modest added meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' The Figma qualifier distinguishes it from sibling URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. It is slightly weakened by 'parse' not specifying the output (file key, validity, normalized URL), so it is not a perfect 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool over alternatives. The description never mentions sibling tools or conditions, and the schema has no required parameters to signal usage. With nine optional params and several URL/shape siblings, the agent is left to infer.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does add one important trait: 'No disk access.' This tells the agent the tool performs no filesystem I/O, which is useful for safety. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns, how 'safe' is determined, or whether other side effects or validations occur, especially given the unrelated optional parameters in the 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and the second states the key behavioral constraint. There is no fluff. It is slightly under-sized given the 9-parameter schema, but for what it says, it is well-structured and easy to scan.

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, no output schema, and nine optional parameters, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, what 'safe' means, which parameter to use, or why the schema includes url, json, city, feed, host, zone, and query. The gap between the narrow description and the broad schema makes the tool hard to invoke correctly without further inspection.

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 structured schema already documents every parameter. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'a path.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not compensate for the oddity that only one of nine parameters is referenced 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' It also immediately clarifies the key scope with 'No disk access,' so an agent can tell this is a static validation tool rather than a filesystem operation. However, it does not distinguish from sibling validators such as wiki-title-ok or domain-shape, and the input schema includes many unrelated parameters like url, json, and city, which creates some ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

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 say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or what conditions make it appropriate. 'No disk access' implies it is a lightweight pre-check, but it does not explicitly route the agent to sibling tools for URL, JSON, or hostname 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 provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says latitude and longitude are produced via Open-Meteo; it does not disclose network dependency, rate limits, whether inputs are discarded, or what happens on invalid or empty input. The schema's 'discarded' notes are not surfaced in the description.

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 single sentence is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, but for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the terseness is under-specification rather than appropriately sized 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?

The definition is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly: it does not say which parameter to set, what the response structure is (lat/lon pair? object?), or how to handle the many unrelated optional fields. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the geocoding context but never connects it to the likely 'city' parameter, and the other eight optional parameters are left unexplained in relation to the tool's purpose. It neither improves nor harms beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific outcome: latitude and longitude for a place, and names the data source (Open-Meteo). It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as weather-hint, but the core function is identifiable.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of which input parameter supplies the 'place', and no exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'via Open-Meteo' hints at a geocoding context but does not constitute usage 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 provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the core parse action. It does not mention return format, failure behavior on non-GitHub URLs, or that all other input parameters are ignored/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?

A single sentence with no filler; the action and resource are front-loaded. Every word contributes to selecting the 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 with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is too thin. It does not state required inputs or return structure, and an agent would be left guessing how the other schema properties relate to the operation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each property. The description adds meaning by identifying that the GitHub URL should yield owner and repo, but it does not explain the role of the other eight parameters and the url property's schema text ('normalize or cite') is not aligned with the parse 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling URL/shape tools like normalize-url, figma-url-shape, and jira-key-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?

The phrase 'from a GitHub URL' gives an explicit condition for when the tool applies, and the parse-owner/repo goal clarifies what it should be used for. It does not explicitly name alternatives or negative cases, but the input domain is clear enough to guide 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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that titles are discarded, but it does not disclose whether a live network fetch occurs, what output format to expect, or whether the nine optional parameters are all ignored. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and 'Titles discarded' is a compact, relevant qualifier. 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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only provides a minimal one-line purpose. It does not clarify why the parameters exist, whether any of them affect the HN count, what the return value looks like, or whether the operation is read-only. For an agent deciding how to invoke this tool, the description leaves too much to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has its own descriptive text, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already does the heavy lifting here. The description does not mislead about parameters, but it also does not enrich 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 clearly states the action ('Count') and the specific resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'). The phrase 'Titles discarded' adds a behavioral qualifier. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 that this tool only returns a count and discards titles, which suggests it is not the tool for retrieving story titles. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like web-fetch or provide clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage context is only 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, yet it says nothing about side effects, return format, or what happens to the input parameters. The description does not even state that this is a read-only lookup; it just names a category of data. Parameter descriptions all mention discarded values, but the tool description itself discloses no 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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single sentence can be concise and still complete; here it omits all operational detail needed for a 9-parameter tool. The brevity reduces clarity instead of enhancing it.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must supply substantial context. It only provides a vague noun phrase and gives no information about return values, how the parameters are used, or how this tool relates to the sibling timezone and utc-time tools. An agent would not know what to pass or what to expect back.

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 9 parameters has its own description in the schema, providing baseline meaning. However, the tool description adds no parameter-level guidance and does not explain why parameters like ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path are relevant to IANA timezone names. The description does not compensate for the apparent mismatch between the parameters and the tool's 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 is a noun phrase, not a verb+resource statement; it merely says 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls,' which mostly restates the tool name 'iana-zones.' It does not say whether the tool returns a list, accepts a zone name, or validates a zone, so the agent cannot determine what action it performs. It also fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only hint is 'for clock calls,' which weakly implies a use context, but no alternative tool is mentioned and no exclusions are given. With siblings like timezone and utc-time, an agent has no basis to choose this tool over them.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the read-only nature of the operation and the limited output ('group counts only'), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose behavior around invalid URLs, fetch failures, rate limits, or the fact that most input parameters are discarded after validation.

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, grammatically clear sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 too sparse for a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain which parameter identifies the robots.txt URL, what the group counts represent, or how the tool behaves when inputs are missing or invalid.

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, and the schema descriptions appear generic and disconnected from robots.txt (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate'), making the mapping from parameters to the described behavior unclear.

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 ('Fetch'), a concrete resource ('a public robots.txt'), and the exact output scope ('return group counts only'). This is clear and likely distinguishable from siblings like web-fetch, but it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools or mention how the target URL is supplied.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as web-fetch, fetch-status, or browser-url-ok. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the key is discarded, which is useful, but it omits whether any network activity occurs, what output or return value is produced, and whether the check is purely local. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 filler words. The second sentence 'Key discarded' adds a data-handling note but partly duplicates the 'discarded' language already present across several schema parameter descriptions.

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, a two-sentence description is not enough for an agent to call this tool reliably. It does not explain what a valid Jira key shape is, what result to expect, or which parameter should contain the Jira key.

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%, none of the nine parameters is named 'key' or explicitly described as the Jira key to check. additionalProperties is false, so an agent cannot pass a key directly, yet the description does not identify which parameter should receive it. This creates real ambiguity despite 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 states a specific action ('Check'), a specific resource ('a Jira issue key'), and a clear focus ('shape'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape and github-repo-shape. It does not define what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, so it falls 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling validation/shape tools. The name and phrase 'Jira issue key' imply the use case, but the description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that only the HTTP status is relevant and that the body is discarded, which is useful clarifying behavior. However, it does not mention follow-redirect behavior, timeouts, error handling, or whether a non-2xx status is still considered a successful call, so the disclosure is incomplete.

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 compact sentence and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids filler and is easy to parse. It could earn a 5 if it also included a brief usage pointer, but as written it is concise without being overly 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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many closely related siblings. It does not explain which parameter is the primary URL, how the tool relates to status-checking siblings, or what a caller should expect in the response beyond 'HTTP status.' This leaves key context missing for reliable tool selection and 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 schema already documents all nine parameters individually. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting. The description's narrow focus on a 'library docs URL' does not clarify why parameters like city, zone, feed, and json exist, which is mildly confusing.

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: returning the HTTP status for a public library docs URL. It is not merely a restatement of the tool name, and the 'Body discarded' detail adds a bit of precision. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which also deal with URL/HTTP 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as fetch-status, url checks, or normalize-url. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer appropriate usage from the name and the single-sentence description.

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 bears the full burden. It discloses that values are discarded, but says nothing about side effects, invalid JSON handling, what the count includes, or whether the operation is read-only.

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, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise for a simple counting tool, although the second sentence 'Values discarded' could arguably be merged with a fuller behavioral note.

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 and no output schema or annotations, this description is incomplete: it does not specify which parameter is the JSON object, what the return value looks like, or how edge cases are handled. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly with confidence.

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 met: every parameter already has a description. The tool description itself adds no mapping of which parameter supplies the JSON object, but because the schema documents parameters, no extra credit is earned.

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, and 'values discarded' clarifies that only the key count matters. It is distinct from sibling validate-json, which would validate rather than count, though it leaves some ambiguity about whether key counting is top-level or recursive.

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 for when to choose this tool over alternatives such as validate-json or the various shape-check tools. The description implies a counting use-case but provides no explicit context, conditions, or exclusions.

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 a meaningful behavior: query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not say whether the tool performs any network fetch, how invalid URLs are handled, or whether the operation is side-effect free, so the disclosure 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 focused sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded and the additional detail about dropped query/fragment is essential rather than redundant.

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, no output schema, and nine parameters, a one-sentence description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It does not specify which parameter to pass, what the return structure looks like, or how errors and malformed URLs 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The schema already describes each parameter, but the description could have helped by pointing to `url` as the operative parameter, especially given the nine-parameter 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 a specific action ('Return') and resource ('URL'), and it names the output components: origin, host, and path. It is clear enough to identify the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling URL-related tools like browser-url-ok 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 description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over the many sibling URL/network tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing clues, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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 usefully discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: no browser is launched. But it does not say whether an HTTP request is made, whether the check is purely syntactic, what is returned, or whether there are side effects, leaving important behavioral questions unanswered.

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 most important caveat ('No browser is launched') is placed immediately after the main purpose, making the core information easy to scan.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. It does not clarify which parameter is the subject of the check, what the return value looks like, whether other parameters are ignored, or what 'can be opened' means operationally. The schema helps, but the description alone leaves too many gaps for reliable 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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify that url is likely the primary parameter while many others are marked 'discarded' in the schema. It meets the baseline for high coverage but provides no extra 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 specific action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and names the core resource (a URL), so it is not a tautology. However, 'can be opened' is ambiguous — it could mean syntactically valid, reachable, or renderable — and the description does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like normalize-url 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 note 'No browser is launched' implies this is a lightweight check and gives some usage context, especially compared to browser-url-ok. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 behavioral burden. 'Query discarded' usefully discloses that the input is not retained, but the description does not clarify whether external operations occur, what happens if query is absent, or what the return value is.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds a useful behavioral fact. There is no redundancy or filler.

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

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

With no output schema, nine optional parameters, and no required fields, the description is incomplete. It never states that query is the intended parameter, that the other fields are irrelevant, or what a successful call returns, making incorrect invocation likely.

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 is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level information beyond restating the general notion of a search query, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a clear action and object: 'Count characters in a search query.' This is not a tautology of the tool name and is generally distinguishable from siblings like memory-key-count or hn-front-count. However, it does not specify which of the nine optional parameters is the query, so it is not fully self-contained.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of the intended context. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Count.'

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. Saying 'catalog' weakly implies a read-only reference, but it does not disclose that several inputs appear to be discarded, whether any network or file activity occurs, or what the returned catalog 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 a single short sentence with no filler and is appropriately front-loaded. However, for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the brevity underspecifies the tool's contract.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description needs to explain how inputs relate to the catalog and what the agent should expect in return. It only names the topic, so the invocation contract is almost entirely left to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The schema documents each parameter, but the description does not connect parameters like ref, url, city, or json to the HTTP status catalog, making input-to-output mapping unclear.

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, 'catalog of common HTTP status codes', so an agent can infer this is for looking up status code meanings. However, it lacks a verb such as 'returns' or 'looks up', and it does not explicitly differentiate it 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or web-fetch. The description only implies a reference/catalog use case, but does not state exclusions or selection criteria, leaving routing between similar tools to guesswork.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the prompt is discarded, which is a useful quirk. However, it does not explain how the nine input parameters relate to the returned template, whether any are actually used, or what the template contains.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. The second sentence is a fragment but still informative. It sacrifices some helpful context, but it earns its brevity.

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, no output schema, and many siblings, two sentences are not enough. It lacks guidance on when to invoke the tool, how the parameters affect behavior, and what the three-step template looks like. The schema covers parameter descriptions but not the overall tool decision 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 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds no meaning about how parameters map to the output, but the schema already documents each parameter individually. The disconnect between 'Prompt discarded' and the many schema fields is not clarified.

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: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is distinct from the sibling utility tools, which focus on validation, fetching, or normalization. It is not a tautology, though it could be more specific about what a 'thinking template' is.

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 the many siblings, and no mention of when not to use it. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints at behavior but does not explain the intended invocation context or whether parameters should be 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the high-level purpose. It does not explain return format, side effects, whether timezone resolution fails, or that the schema parameters are largely unrelated to the stated timezone 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 a single efficient sentence without wasted words. However, it is too sparse for a tool with nine unrelated optional parameters and no annotations or output schema; brevity here borders on under-specification.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and nine parameters that do not align with the stated purpose, the description is far from complete. There is no explanation of what the tool actually accepts, what it returns, or how to specify the timezone.

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% parameter descriptions, the description's only parameter hint—'named IANA timezone'—has no corresponding property in the schema. The actual parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, query) all relate to other concerns, so the description adds no useful mapping and instead creates a phantom parameter expectation.

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 action ('Current time') on a specific resource ('a named IANA timezone'), and it can be distinguished from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones. However, the described purpose is undermined because the input schema contains no timezone parameter, so an agent cannot connect the purpose to an actual argument.

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 such as utc-time or iana-zones. The phrase 'named IANA timezone' implies a scenario, but no when-to-use, exclusions, or alternative routing 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, safety, and input handling. It only says the tool returns a timestamp, implying a read-only action. However, it does not reveal that all input parameters are effectively discarded or validated only for shape, nor does it mention any external calls or rate limits. The property descriptions hint at these behaviors, but the main description omits them.

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 zero wasted words. For a tool whose primary function is a simple timestamp retrieval, this brevity is appropriate and easily processed by an agent. The lack of elaboration is a trade-off that affects other dimensions but not conciseness itself.

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 input schema with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only states the output and does not clarify whether parameters affect the result, whether they are ignored, or the exact return format (e.g., ISO string vs. Unix time). An agent could easily be confused about which parameters, if any, are required. This is a significant completeness gap for a tool with such a broad schema.

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 descriptions for all seven parameters, so schema_description_coverage is high. The main description adds no parameter semantics, leaving the schema to carry that weight. It does not explain why a 'current UTC timestamp' tool accepts parameters like 'url', 'city', or 'json', but that gap is more a matter of contextual completeness than semantics of individual 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 clearly states the output: a current UTC timestamp. Though it is a noun phrase rather than a sentence with a verb, the resource is specific and understandable. It does not distinguish itself from sibling time-related tools like 'timezone', but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 or when to prefer an alternative. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool's name and one-line output statement.

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 disclose that the body is discarded, which is useful, but it does not say what happens for valid versus invalid JSON, what output is returned, or whether any other side effects 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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The second sentence adds side-effect information, though it is somewhat redundant with the per-parameter 'discarded' notes already present 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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the return value, error behavior, or which parameter corresponds to the 'body', and it leaves the outcome of the validation unspecified.

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-specific meaning and even introduces an ambiguous 'body' term that does not appear in the input schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and object: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' The tool is also clearly distinct from sibling shape-check tools by its name and purpose. However, it refers to 'body' when the schema exposes a `json` property, so the mapping is slightly unclear.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's name and generic check phrasing.

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 but does not disclose behavior such as network dependency, response format, ignored parameters, or error cases.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core function and source, making it easy to scan.

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 a 9-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, this minimal description is not sufficient. It omits return format, which parameters are relevant, whether other parameters are ignored, and any usage caveats.

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 though the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. The description mentions 'city', aligning with the city parameter, but it does not clarify why eight other unrelated parameters exist or how they relate to the weather query.

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 the tool's output ('current temperature') and data source ('Open-Meteo'), clearly identifying the resource and function. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as geo-hint, so it misses the top score.

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 for when to use weather-hint instead of a sibling tool. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions that would make this tool the right choice, leaving usage entirely to 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; 'Body discarded' usefully reveals that the response will only contain status/header information, not page content. However, it does not disclose network behaviors, auth expectations, or the fact that several schema fields (ref, city, feed, json, path) have no effect on the result.

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: the core HTTP status/content-type behavior comes first, followed by the important discard note. It is efficient, though the economy comes at the cost of not addressing the many schema fields.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this two-sentence description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell whether url is required, why the other six fields exist, or what inputs are acceptable beyond a public URL; the schema descriptions patch some of this but the tool-level context is missing.

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 seven parameters have their own schema descriptions, so schema coverage is high and the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no clarity about which parameter is the primary operand or whether the non-url parameters are intended to be ignored, so it stays at 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 names a concrete outcome: 'HTTP status and content type for a public URL,' and adds that 'Body discarded,' so the core purpose is identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'fetch-status' or mention the extra schema fields, which prevents a higher score.

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 for when this tool should be selected instead of alternatives such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or validate-json. The description only states the operation and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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, but it only says the title is discarded after the call. It does not disclose return values, live network behavior, matching semantics, error handling, or any prerequisites.

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, but the second sentence adds little operational value and the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a mismatched parameter list, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what input to provide, what result to expect, or how this tool relates to sibling validation 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?

The description mentions a 'title', but the input schema contains no title property and instead exposes unrelated fields like ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path. There is no mapping from the tool's core input to any schema field, so correct invocation is not determinable.

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 operation: check whether a Wikipedia title exists. It is clear and not a tautology, though it does not distinguish the tool from sibling validation/shape tools or explain how the title should be supplied.

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 it: whenever an agent needs to know whether a Wikipedia title exists. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools are better alternatives for related checks.

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