ISO country DE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Public', hinting at read-only, but provides no detail on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. The tool's actual behavior is completely 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 short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being nearly useless. Conciseness is not achieved because essential context is missing; this is under-specification rather than efficient 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent has no idea what the tool returns, how to invoke it correctly, or when to prefer it over siblings. The tool cannot be used reliably based on 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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no meaning about how these parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the ISO 3166-1 record for DE. The schema provides individual meanings, but the description fails to tie them to the tool's purpose, so it does not enhance understanding 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 'Public ISO 3166-1 record for DE' is a noun phrase, not a clear action. It implies the tool provides country information for Germany but does not state what the tool does (e.g., retrieves, validates, returns). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'citation' or 'compatibility'.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine if this tool is appropriate for a task.

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. It discloses that page content is not stored, but does not mention other behaviors such as making a network request, handling redirects, or error behavior. The description is partially transparent but leaves important side effects unstated.

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 sentences with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key behavioral note, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 sufficient for a simple tool, stating what it returns and a storage constraint. It lacks context on when to prefer this tool over siblings or how errors are handled, but given the simplicity, it is mostly 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?

The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone), covering their semantics. The tool description adds no extra meaning for these parameters, so the score is at the baseline of 3 for complete 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 clearly states that the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog. The action verb 'Return' and the explicit outputs make the purpose 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 when to use the tool—when URL components and HTTP status are needed—but does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast them. The inclusion of 'Page content is not stored' provides a usage hint about data retention, but a direct reference to siblings would make guidance clearer.

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 note is 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses privacy but not the tool's core operation. There is no mention of side effects, permissions, or return behavior; with no annotations, the description bears the full burden and is insufficient.

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

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

The description is brief and to the point, but the content is vague and not front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It is concise yet uninformative, warranting a moderate score.

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

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

Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description leaves out essential context such as what the tool returns, the meaning of 'classified,' and when to invoke it. It is far from complete for an agent to use 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 schema already provides clear descriptions for all four parameters (URL, host, JSON, timezone), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' does not specify what the tool does, what kind of request, or how classification works. It does not mention any of the parameters or distinguish it from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description lacks any conditional or comparative information.

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

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

The statement 'without WHOIS or data' discloses that the tool does not perform network or data-fetching operations, implying a pure computation. With no annotations provided, this partial behavioral disclosure is helpful, though it does not mention edge cases or error behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, brief sentence that is direct and to the point. The phrase 'or data' is somewhat vague but does not significantly detract from the overall clarity.

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 mismatched schema, the description fails to explain which parameter should be used for the hostname or how the tool relates to the other parameters. A user would be uncertain whether to pass 'host', 'url', or something else, making the tool contextually incomplete.

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

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

The schema parameters (url, host, json, timezone) and their descriptions are clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate' and 'timezone' as 'IANA timezone name', which are irrelevant to splitting a hostname. The description does not clarify how to pass the hostname, and the parameter descriptions appear copy-pasted from unrelated sibling tools.

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 ('Split a hostname into labels') and the resource (hostname). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly excluding WHOIS and data retrieval, which clarifies its 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to split a hostname) and provides a negative condition ('without WHOIS or data') to set expectations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for WHOIS or data-related tasks, leaving some inference required.

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 and a minimal description, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The description gives no hint about what happens when invoked.

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, but its brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It lacks a structured explanation of functionality and does not front-load any actionable information. It is concise but not 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?

The description provides almost no context about expected inputs, outputs, or behavior. There is no mention of return values, errors, or side effects, and the tool's relationship to the sibling tools is unclear. The description is insufficient for an agent to use 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 schema covers 100% of parameters, but the tool description does not explain how the parameters relate to the stated purpose. The presence of 'url', 'host', and 'json' alongside 'zone' is confusing given the 'iana-zones' name and description, and the parameter descriptions do not clarify their role in this specific 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and there is no indication of whether it returns a list, validates, or converts something. The purpose is not discernible without additional context.

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 its siblings (e.g., 'timezone', 'utc-time'). No conditions or scenarios are provided, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate.

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 states 'Fetch a public robots.txt' which implies a read-only network operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, error behaviors, or any limitations. With no annotations to supplement, it carries the full burden and provides minimal transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 description lacks critical context. It does not explain what 'group counts' means, the expected format of the URL, or how the output is structured. Combined with mismatched parameters, the definition is incomplete for an agent to use 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 parameter descriptions are severely misleading. The 'url' description mentions 'normalize or cite', 'json' mentions 'validate', and 'zone' mentions 'timezone' — all unrelated to robots.txt. They do not align with the tool's purpose and actively mislead an agent.

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: 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' It specifies the verb (fetch), resource (robots.txt), and output (group counts), making the tool's purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions such as 'use when you need to check robots.txt rules' or contrast with sibling tools like normalize-url or domain-shape.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as side effects, errors, edge cases, or permissions. Given the simple transformation, some transparency is expected but entirely absent.

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 itself is concise and to the point, but the overall tool definition is structurally confusing due to the mismatch between the description and the schema. The one-sentence description is efficient, but the schema inconsistency undermines the structure.

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 does not explain the role of the extra parameters, nor does it provide any output schema or return format. It also fails to mention any context about URL handling, such as supported schemes or error behavior. The tool is incomplete for an agent to use 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 schema lists four parameters, but only 'url' is explained in the description. The parameters 'host', 'json', and 'zone' have schema descriptions that appear to belong to other tools (e.g., validate-json, timezone) and are not integrated into the tool's stated purpose. This severe mismatch leaves the semantics of most parameters undefined.

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 function: returning origin, host, and path for a URL while dropping query and fragment. However, the schema includes unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) that are not mentioned in the description, which introduces some confusion about the actual purpose.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of suitable contexts, limitations, or comparisons to sibling tools like validate-json or timezone.

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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as side effects, read-only nature, or potential errors. The tool's safety profile is entirely 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, brief sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks essential details about the tool's operation and parameter usage, so the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 is missing critical context: no output schema, no explanation of how the parameters relate to the catalog, and no indication of what the tool actually does with the provided inputs. The description and schema together are insufficient for an agent to use 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?

Each parameter has a description (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), but these descriptions are unrelated to the tool's stated purpose of cataloging HTTP status codes. The mismatch between the parameter names/descriptions and the tool's function makes it impossible to infer how they should be used.

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 is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which identifies the resource but not the specific action (e.g., lookup, list, retrieve). The parameters (url, host, json, zone) do not align with HTTP status codes, making the purpose even less 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). The description does not indicate the intended use case or context, leaving the agent without direction on 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?

The description does not disclose any side effects, data handling, or read-only nature. The schema mentions that the 'json' parameter is discarded, but the description itself provides no transparency about 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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary words.

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 extremely brief and omits essential context such as parameter roles, output format, or any caveats. It is not complete enough for an agent to use effectively without further information.

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 meaning to the parameters, but the schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% coverage. Since the schema already explains each parameter, the description does not need to add further detail.

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 provides the current time in a named IANA timezone, which is specific and understandable. It does not explicitly mention the resource scope but the phrase 'current time' is clear enough.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like utc-time or iana-zones. The description offers no conditions, examples, or context for invocation.

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 and the description does not disclose side effects, output format, or any behavioral details beyond the basic timestamp claim.

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

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

The description is very short and free of fluff, but it omits necessary information about parameters and usage, making it under-specified despite being concise.

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

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

With no output schema and no explanation of the mismatched parameters, the description is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with appropriate arguments.

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 includes four parameters with descriptions, but those descriptions appear mismatched (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and do not explain how they affect the UTC timestamp output. The description adds no clarification.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' states the basic purpose but lacks a clear verb and does not explain how the listed parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the tool. It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings like timezone but 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezone or validate-json. The description gives no context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the body is discarded, but does not mention side effects, return value, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only. This is insufficient for an agent to predict its 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 one concise sentence, front-loading the core action. However, its brevity sacrifices essential clarity about parameter mapping and behavior, so it is efficient but not sufficiently informative.

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 omits return format, error behavior, and which parameter is actually validated. An agent would be uncertain how to invoke it correctly given the four parameters.

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 already provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify which parameter is the 'body' or provide any additional semantic context.

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 validates JSON, but the term 'body' is ambiguous—the schema exposes url, host, json, and zone parameters, and it's unclear which one is the body. It doesn't explicitly map to a specific parameter or distinguish from siblings, though none of the siblings appear to do JSON validation.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of which parameter to provide. The description does not explain the context in which this tool is appropriate.

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