ISO country GD

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a notable trait ('Task text discarded') and lists what it returns. But it does not mention network behavior, authentication requirements, payment implications, or whether any side effects occur, which is relevant for a pay-per-call gateway tool.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then states outputs and a key behavioral caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and output list but leaves gaps. It does not explain how parameters map to returned artifacts, what 'remote MCP hops' means, or what an agent should actually pass to get a useful result.

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 tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, only the note that task text is discarded, which is not a parameter. This is the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'. It also names concrete outputs (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops), which clearly separates it from the many sibling validation and shape-check tools.

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

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

The intended use is implied: use this when you need information about the Monid pay-per-call gateway. The warning that 'Task text discarded' is a useful negative constraint. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that no browser is launched, which implies a side-effect-free check, but it does not say whether the tool makes network requests, what 'can be opened' means operationally, or what response the agent should expect. The schema's 'discarded after' notes clarify some parameter behavior, but the overall tool behavior remains opaque.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the key side-effect exclusion ('No browser is launched') is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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

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

This is a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of high-level behavioral context. It does not explain what 'ok' means, what the tool returns, whether it performs network access, or how to interpret the many optional parameters. The description is too thin for an agent to reliably predict call outcomes.

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 additional parameter explanation. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level value, and it fails to explain why the tool accepts unrelated optional parameters such as city, feed, json, and timezone. However, because each schema property has its own description, the structured data already handles most parameter semantics.

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

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a useful exclusion ('No browser is launched'). However, 'can be opened' is ambiguous: it could mean syntactic validity, network reachability, or browser compatibility, and the input schema's 'url' description says 'normalize or cite' rather than 'open'. It does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like playwright-url-ok or web-fetch beyond the no-browser clause.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The 'No browser is launched' sentence is a behavioral exclusion, but it does not say whether to prefer this over normalize-url, fetch-status, or playwright-url-ok, nor does it describe the intended call context. An agent is left to infer when 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.

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the expression is discarded, omitting side effects, return value, or what 'evaluate' produces; the lack of an expression parameter makes even this disclosure impossible to map to the actual call.

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

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, its brevity hides the critical mismatch between the stated purpose and the actual parameters.

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, nine parameters, and a description that references a nonexistent expression parameter, this is far too incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description introduces an 'expression' concept absent from the schema and never explains how the nine parameters relate to arithmetic evaluation. It therefore detracts from rather than adds to parameter understanding.

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, 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic', but the input schema contains no arithmetic or expression parameter—only ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, and query. 'Expression discarded' further obscures whether the tool performs calculation or just validates/discards input, so an agent cannot determine 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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The only hint, 'Expression discarded', is misleading because no expression parameter exists, so it gives an agent no basis for choosing this tool over its shape-check 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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral guarantee: 'Page content is not stored.' But it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether the URL is fetched live, how errors are handled, or why several schema parameters (city, feed, json, ref, path) exist and are discarded.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and result are front-loaded, and the privacy note earns its place as a separate, important behavioral signal.

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

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

This tool has nine parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to compensate. It names the output fields but not the output format, nor does it clarify which parameters are alternative modes or mutually exclusive. An agent would still be uncertain how to invoke the tool correctly beyond the url parameter.

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 does not add parameter-level semantics beyond indicating that the tool operates on a URL; it does not explain the relationship between the nine parameters or which ones are relevant for normal use.

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 ('Return'), a specific resource ('a URL'), and precise result fields (host, scheme, HTTP status), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does. The additional sentence 'Page content is not stored' differentiates it from content-fetching siblings such as web-fetch.

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

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

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL without storing page content. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer alternatives like normalize-url, fetch-status, or browser-url-ok, so the routing guidance is left 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 behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'No identifiers are retained' and parameter descriptions reinforce that values are discarded after the check. However, it does not explain side effects, whether any external call occurs, or what output the classification produces.

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 the main action, and the second sentence adds a useful privacy note. However, for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, this is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is not wordy, but it does not convey enough operational 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?

Given the tool's complexity—nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 27 sibling tools—the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the classification result looks like, how to choose which parameters to pass, or how this tool relates to sibling tools. The per-parameter schema descriptions provide some context, but the tool-level picture is still largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and all nine parameters already have meaningful descriptions such as 'discarded after the shape check' or 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 ('Show how this request is classified') but leaves the classification scheme unspecified. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling shape/classification tools such as domain-shape or jira-key-shape. It is not a tautology, but it is too vague to be 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 27 sibling tools. It gives no context about what types of requests or inputs are appropriate, and it names no alternatives or exclusions. The privacy note is the only implicit usage hint.

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 makes clear that this is a non-enriching, parsing operation: it will not return WHOIS or ownership data. With no annotations present, that is useful context, but the description does not disclose the return format, error behavior, or whether it performs any network access beyond the WHOIS exclusion.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core verb and object appear immediately, and the 'without WHOIS or ownership data' qualifier earns its place by setting expectations about output scope.

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?

No output schema exists and the description only promises 'labels' without specifying the return structure, while the schema allows nine optional parameters with no required one. The per-parameter schema descriptions compensate for much of the ambiguity, but an agent still has to infer that 'host' is the operative input and what a successful result looks like.

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 applies; the description maps loosely to the 'host' parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. In particular, it does not clarify how the other eight optional parameters relate to the stated hostname-splitting behavior.

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

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

The description names a specific operation ('split'), a concrete resource ('a hostname'), and an explicit boundary ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). This distinguishes it from sibling shape/validation tools for GitHub repos, Jira keys, Figma URLs, and from enrichment tools like geo-hint or weather-hint.

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 qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a use case: pick this tool when all you need is label splitting, not ownership enrichment. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, so an agent gets only implied guidance rather than explicit routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method (HEAD), the public-URL constraint, and that only status is returned, which is useful. However, it does not explain redirects, error behavior, or what 'status' means in the response.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the core behavior.

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

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

Despite 9 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description only addresses URL fetching. It does not explain how the other parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.) relate to the tool or what the returned status looks like, leaving an agent under-informed.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming URL; the schema descriptions already document the 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 action (HEAD), the resource (a public URL), and the output (status only). It is specific and easy to understand, although it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok.

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

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

The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Return status only' weakly implies a lightweight check, but no sibling tools or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says the path is discarded. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what parsing returns, whether an invalid URL errors, or how unrelated 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?

Two short sentences contain no filler, and the second sentence adds a meaningful detail. It is efficient, though slightly too terse to fully orient an agent.

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

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

There is no output schema, yet the description never explains what 'parse' returns. It also does not identify which of the nine optional schema fields is the intended input, leaving the agent to infer that 'url' is the relevant one.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds little beyond noting that the path is discarded, which is the baseline expectation at 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL') and adds a behavioral constraint ('Path discarded'). It is distinguishable from generic URL tools like normalize-url, though it doesn't explicitly say the result is a shape/validation outcome.

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 versus alternatives like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape. The context is vaguely implied by 'Figma file URL,' but there are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "No disk access" is a genuinely useful safety trait that tells the agent this is a pure shape-validation call with no I/O side effects. But it omits the return value, what "safe" means, error behavior, and that 8 of 9 schema parameters are discarded rather than used meaningfully.

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?

Seven words in two short sentences, action first, with zero filler. Every word earns its place: the second sentence adds the no-disk-access constraint, which is essential behavioral information not implied by the name alone.

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 heterogeneous parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It doesn't state what the tool returns, which parameter(s) to pass, or what constitutes a "safe" path. The schema's own parameter descriptions (URL normalization, weather hints, IANA zones, discarded JSON/query text) reveal a compound surface the seven-word description never addresses.

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 with no parameter details in the description. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — it doesn't even explicitly name the 'path' parameter, nor does it explain how the other parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) relate to a path-safety check.

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 path looks safe" — which clearly communicates the core action. The "No disk access" qualifier sharpens the scope. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling shape-checking tools such as domain-shape, github-repo-shape, wiki-title-ok, or normalize-url, and the stated purpose covers only the 'path' parameter while the schema exposes 8 unrelated parameters.

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 alternative. No when/when-not conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of siblings despite a long list of similar shape-check tools (domain-shape, jira-key-shape, figma-url-shape, normalize-url). An agent receives no routing context at all.

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 for disclosing behavior. It only identifies the data source and output concept; it does not say whether this is a read-only lookup, what failure modes exist, or how results are returned. The schema's 'discarded' notes are not part of the tool description and do not compensate.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it easy to parse. It is concise but omits critical usage details, so it earns a high but not top 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?

With nine optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. An agent cannot determine which parameter to supply or what the response will look like. It needs at least a statement like 'pass city and receive latitude/longitude'.

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 each parameter has a descriptive comment; the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail and does not disambiguate which of the nine optional fields is relevant for geocoding, so it provides no value 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 the tool resolves a place to latitude/longitude via Open-Meteo, which is specific and distinguishable from siblings like weather-hint or timezone. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement, and it never names the relevant input parameter.

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 geo-hint versus alternatives, or which sibling tools to prefer. The description only implies output purpose and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer context from the tool name and schema.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Parse' and does not describe the output shape, error behavior for non-GitHub URLs, or how the other eight parameters are handled. This leaves a substantial behavior gap for a 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?

One sentence with no filler; the action, target, and input type are front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning and the description is appropriately sized for the clarity it provides.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, many closely named siblings, and no output schema, a single sentence is too thin. It leaves return format, invalid-input behavior, and sibling routing unresolved, despite the schema's parameter descriptions.

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%, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds the useful link between the url parameter and GitHub owner/repo extraction, but it does not explain the roles of the remaining parameters, which are only documented through their schema descriptions.

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 ('Parse') and identifies the resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), making the core function clear. The GitHub scope distinguishes it from sibling shape tools such as domain-shape and jira-key-shape, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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

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

The phrase 'from a GitHub URL' provides clear context for when to invoke this tool: when the agent needs to extract owner and repo from a GitHub URL. It does not contrast it with alternatives or give exclusions, so it falls short of the top score.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that titles are discarded and implies a live 'current' fetch. However, it does not disclose the exact return type, whether the nine optional parameters are ignored, or how failures/rate limits are handled.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The 'Titles discarded' sentence earns its place by setting output expectations concisely.

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

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

For a simple counter, the core operation and output scope are conveyed. However, the description is less complete given the 9-parameter schema, zero required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations; it does not state that arguments are unnecessary, what the return value looks like, or how it handles failure to reach Hacker News.

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 already has a description, giving the baseline a 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning and does not clarify which parameters, if any, should be supplied. Since all parameters are optional and appear peripheral to the HN count, an empty invocation is implied but never stated.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Count' and names the exact resource: current Hacker News front-page stories. The second sentence clarifies that titles are not part of the result, which helps distinguish it from tools that return or inspect story titles. No sibling tool appears to overlap with 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs a count of the current Hacker News front page. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the narrow resource makes the intended use fairly obvious and no exclusions are needed.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It only hints at content ('IANA timezone names') without stating what happens on invocation, what is returned, or how the numerous input parameters relate to the 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 terse sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no other annotations. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of necessary information.

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

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, while the input schema contains nine optional parameters and a vague purpose. The description does not explain what the tool does with the parameters, what it returns, or how it should be invoked, making it nearly impossible 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain the odd collection of ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path fields, so it remains at baseline 3.

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

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

The description identifies a resource ('common IANA timezone names') and a context ('clock calls'), but lacks a verb—it never says whether the tool lists, returns, or validates these names. It can be loosely distinguished from siblings like timezone and utc-time, but only by inference.

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?

'For clock calls' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with sibling tools such as timezone or utc-time. An agent must infer when this tool is the appropriate 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?

There are no annotations, so the prose carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an external fetch and that robots.txt content is discarded except group counts, but it does not explain how the URL is resolved, what happens on failures, or whether redirects or rate limits apply.

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 10-word sentence with no filler; the core action and output constraint are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits the input-to-resource mapping, the meaning of 'group counts', and any response or error contract, so an agent still lacks key call-time 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the prose. However, the description adds no mapping between 'robots.txt' and any specific field, leaving ambiguity about whether to pass 'url', 'host', or another parameter.

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

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

The description names a specific action ('Fetch'), a concrete resource ('public robots.txt'), and a narrow result ('return group counts only'). This clearly differentiates it from generic fetch/status siblings that would return full content or HTTP details.

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

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

It implies the tool is for obtaining only the group counts from a public robots.txt, and 'only' hints that full-content retrieval should go elsewhere, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use it.

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

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

The only behavioral statement, 'Key discarded', largely repeats the discard language already present in each schema property description. With no annotations available, the description fails to clarify whether the check is side-effect-free, whether it makes network calls, or what happens with invalid input.

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

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

The description is two terse sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is appropriately compact for a simple shape-checking 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a seven-field generic input schema, this description is far too sparse. It lacks the critical mapping between the Jira-key purpose and the input parameters, valid shape examples, and any indication of return behavior, making correct invocation difficult.

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 documents each of the seven parameters, the description never identifies which field carries the Jira key to be checked. None of the schema properties mention 'Jira key', so an agent cannot deterministically map the stated purpose to the correct input parameter.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check') and resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, it does not explain what constitutes a valid Jira key shape or what the check returns, so the purpose is clear but minimally elaborated.

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. Sibling tools such as wiki-title-ok or figma-url-shape are not referenced, and no conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios are 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. It only discloses 'Body discarded,' but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes a network request, how redirects or timeouts behave, or why many parameters are 'discarded after the check.' Those discard notes live in the schema, not in the tool 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 description is eight words in two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and with no filler. The second sentence adds a useful behavioral note. It is quite terse for a 9-parameter tool, but it is still concise and well-structured.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and only covers the URL case. It does not explain return format, parameter selection, or the relationship to overlapping siblings, so an agent cannot reliably decide to invoke this tool instead of a sibling.

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 does add a little meaning by suggesting the url parameter is used for an HTTP status check, but it conflicts with the schema's 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and says nothing about the other eight parameters. The high coverage prevents a lower score.

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

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

The description names a specific outcome (HTTP status) and resource (public library docs URL), so it is not a tautology. However, it lacks a real verb, does not distinguish the tool from overlapping siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, and the 9-property schema (city, json, zone, query, etc.) is inconsistent with the narrow 'library docs URL' framing.

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?

Usage is only implied: use when you need an HTTP status for a public library docs URL. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing despite many overlapping siblings (fetch-status, browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, web-fetch, normalize-url). The broad optional schema gives no additional guidance about which parameter should be selected.

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 disclose one useful behavioral trait: values are discarded, implying a side-effect-free counting operation. With no annotations, however, it leaves the output type, invalid-JSON behavior, and counting depth undisclosed, so the behavioral picture is only partially complete.

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 definition is extremely compact: two short sentences, no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this is not enough. Missing details include which parameter carries the JSON, what the tool returns, and behavior on malformed JSON, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it without guessing.

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 never tells the agent that the JSON object is supplied through the 'json' parameter. That parameter is described in the schema as 'JSON text to validate,' not as text whose keys should be counted, and the other eight optional parameters create ambiguity about what should be passed.

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

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

The description states a clear operation and resource: 'Count keys in a JSON object,' and the 'Values discarded' qualifier differentiates it from value-reading or validation tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as validate-json or clarify whether top-level keys or all nested keys are counted.

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

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. The only usage signal is implicit in the verb 'Count,' so an agent must infer when this tool should be preferred over similar utilities.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the core pure-function behavior plus the side effect that query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not disclose how invalid URLs are handled, whether HTTPS is required, or that most of the nine schema parameters appear unrelated to normalization and are likely ignored.

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

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

Two short sentences with the primary output front-loaded and no filler. Every word contributes to stating the behavior.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a 9-parameter schema with zero required fields, the definition is incomplete. It does not clarify the return type, error behavior, or the role of the unrelated parameters, so an agent cannot confidently 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose and include weather, JSON, timezone, and search-text fields. The description does not identify which of the nine optional parameters are actually consumed for normalization or clarify that `url` should be provided, so it fails to add the needed semantics beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's verb and result: return origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly says query and fragment are dropped. This differentiates it from sibling fetch/status/check tools, which are about retrieval or validation rather than URL component extraction.

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

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

The description implies the tool is for extracting normalized URL components and dropping query/fragment, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use it. With many URL-related siblings, the routing decision is left to inference rather than explicit guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It does disclose the key fact that no browser is launched and frames the operation as a read-only check. However, it does not explain whether a network request is made, what 'can be opened' means, or any timeout/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 two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence is a meaningful behavioral qualifier rather than repetition.

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

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

The schema richly describes each parameter, but the tool-level description still leaves gaps: it does not specify the return format, whether a live network request is made, or how to reason about the many unrelated optional parameters. An agent could probably use the URL parameter correctly, but the overall context is thinner than ideal for a no-annotation, no-output-schema 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 all nine parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema already explains each field's role, including which values are discarded.

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 qualifier 'No browser is launched' differentiates it from the sibling browser-url-ok, so an agent can reasonably tell this apart from related URL-checking tools.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status, web-fetch, or browser-url-ok. 'No browser is launched' implies a lightweight check, but the description never tells the agent which sibling is preferred for which scenario.

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 disclosure burden, yet it only offers 'Query discarded' — a genuinely useful non-retention note. It fails to say whether the operation is local or networked, what the call returns, and that the other eight schema parameters are ignored, leaving the tool's behavior ambiguous against a schema that describes unrelated behaviors.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler — every word earns its place. It loses one point only because the brevity skips guidance a fuller description would include, though that underspecification is already penalized in other dimensions.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 28 siblings, the description is far too thin: it never states the return value (an integer count?), the intended use case, or why the schema advertises a URL-normalization, weather-hint, and JSON-validation surface. An agent cannot call this reliably without guessing.

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, but the parameter descriptions actively mislead the caller: url claims 'normalize or cite,' city claims 'weather hint,' json claims 'validate' — behaviors belonging to sibling tools, not a query-length counter. The description never clarifies that only the 'query' parameter is meaningful, so the nominal coverage increases confusion rather than resolving it.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource — 'count characters in a search query' — so an agent knows what the tool does before inspecting anything else. It also scopes to 'search query', which naturally separates it from measurement siblings like memory-key-count and hn-front-count, though it never explicitly contrasts them and the schema's eight unrelated parameters muddy the stated 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative would be better. With 28 siblings including multiple count/shape-check tools, an agent has no basis for choosing this over memory-key-count or a shape-check sibling, and no hint that it is meant for pre-flight query-length validation.

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 discloses no side effects, return behavior, error cases, or read-only nature. The schema's notes about values being 'discarded' appear in parameter descriptions, not in the tool description, and the description adds no 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 a single sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified to the point of being useless as an invocation guide. It lacks a verb, usage context, and parameter guidance, so the brevity is not 'appropriately sized' for the tool's complexity.

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

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

This tool has seven varied parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple related siblings. The description provides almost no information about what the tool returns, how the parameters should be used, or what problem it solves. It is far too incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

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

The description mentions none of the parameters, but every one of the seven schema properties has its own description, giving roughly 100% schema_description_coverage. The baseline of 3 applies. However, the description fails to explain how any of these parameters relate to an HTTP status code catalog, so the agent still lacks selection guidance.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase that mostly restates the tool name: 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It names a resource but not an operation, and it gives no basis for distinguishing this tool from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch. An agent cannot tell what invoking this tool actually does.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to choose status-catalog over alternative tools. The phrase 'short catalog' implies a quick reference, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated, and no sibling tools are mentioned.

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. It does disclose the most important inert behavior—'Prompt discarded'—and the schema descriptions echo that parameters are discarded. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization, rate limits, or output behavior in more detail. For a static, low-risk tool this is adequate but not rich.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail; every word contributes either the purpose or the key behavioral caveat.

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 zero required parameters and a simple static return, the description is mostly sufficient to invoke it. However, there is no output schema, and the description never specifies what the 'three-step thinking template' actually looks like or what the caller should do with it. The return format is 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 schema already documents each parameter individually. The description's 'Prompt discarded' adds a broad signal that inputs are ignored, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description states a clear action and result: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is not a tautology, and it distinguishes the tool from the surrounding validation/shape-check siblings by describing a template-returning purpose. It could be stronger by naming an alternative or detailing what the template contains, but the core purpose is clear.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling or alternative. 'Prompt discarded' implies that arguments are unnecessary, but the description never explicitly says 'use when you need a thinking template' or 'call with no arguments.' Usage context is left 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about side effects. Meanwhile the schema reveals a striking quirk: 8 of 9 parameters are 'discarded after the check,' implying this tool doubles as a validation/hardening surface. The description presents a simple lookup while the actual behavior is more complex, which an agent cannot anticipate from the description alone.

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, ten words, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first words. Every word earns its place. The brevity is a virtue here, even though it creates thinness captured elsewhere in the scoring.

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 output schema and no annotations, a single clause is inadequate. The description omits the discard-and-validate behavior visible in the schema, gives no indication of what the tool returns, and fails to situate it among 27 siblings that include closely related utc-time and iana-zones. An agent has enough to fill in `zone` but not enough to understand the tool's actual scope.

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. The description reinforces that `zone` is the operative parameter, but it adds no format details or syntax beyond the schema's own 'IANA timezone name' description. Nothing is gained or lost relative to baseline.

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

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

The description states a clear resource and function: 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' — an implied verb (returns) plus a specific resource with a format qualifier (IANA). It is unambiguous on its own, but it never names or contrasts siblings like utc-time or iana-zones, so it earns 4 rather than 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided — there are no mentions of alternatives such as utc-time for UTC time or iana-zones for zone listings. The usage scenario is only implied: if you want the current time for a named timezone, call this tool. It is not misleading, but it leaves the decision 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 is the only behavior disclosure, and 'current UTC timestamp' reveals little beyond what the name implies. It does not state the output format, precision, or whether any parameter affects 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 one short front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial timestamp tool, though the terseness limits how much context can be conveyed.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description alone must convey what the caller receives, but the format of the timestamp is unspecified. Given multiple seemingly unrelated parameters and no annotations, the description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke and parse the result.

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

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

The input schema already describes all seven parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it neither helps nor hurts 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 the operation—returning the current UTC timestamp—in a compact phrase. It is not a tautology and conveys the core purpose, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling time utilities like timezone or iana-zones.

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 or when to prefer a sibling such as timezone. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving selection 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?

The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the body is discarded, so the input is not retained. However, it does not explain what happens for invalid JSON or what the return value looks like, and the annotations are all false, so they do not carry much of the behavioral burden.

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

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

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the discard behavior stated right after. There is no filler, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 validator with no output schema and several seemingly unrelated optional parameters, the description is under-specified. It omits return/error semantics and fails to connect the abstract 'body' to the concrete 'json' parameter, so an agent cannot reliably know how to invoke it correctly.

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

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

The schema documents each field, but the description refers to 'a body' without mapping it to the schema's 'json' property or explaining why the other optional fields exist. This creates a real ambiguity about which input actually gets validated.

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 body is valid JSON' clearly identifies a validation action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling validators, but the JSON-specific scope makes the core purpose apparent.

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 about when to use validate-json instead of alternatives, and it states no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions. Usage can only be inferred from the name and surrounding 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'via Open-Meteo' and does not state whether the call is read-only, how errors or unknown cities are handled, whether the other schema fields are ignored, or what output format the agent should expect.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the key information—city, current temperature, and data source—is front-loaded. It is concise without being a tautology.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and a nine-parameter optional schema, the one-line description is inadequate. The agent is not told what the tool returns, what happens when no parameters are provided, or which of the many optional fields are actually used.

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 city parameter's schema description aligns with the tool description, but the tool description does not clarify that city is the only meaningful field among the nine optional parameters, nor does it explain result formatting such as temperature units.

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 provides the current temperature for a city and identifies Open-Meteo as the data source. It is specific enough to distinguish weather lookup from the sibling hint tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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 about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as geo-hint or lib-docs-hint, and no prerequisites or alternative routing are mentioned. The only implied context is needing a city temperature, which is not sufficient 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 carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the body is discarded and scopes the tool to public URLs, but it does not mention behavior around redirects, failures, rate limits, or auth. This is acceptable for a simple read-only check but not fully transparent.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the core function and then state the single most important behavioral caveat. There is no wasted wording.

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

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

Despite a rich schema, the description does not reconcile its single-purpose wording with the nine optional parameters, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill the gap. An agent cannot tell whether fields like city, json, or query are alternate inputs or irrelevant to the fetch, and behavior for non-public URLs is 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 9 parameters. The description adds the useful 'public URL' constraint for the url parameter, but it does not clarify how the other optional parameters (city, json, path, zone, query) relate to the stated web-fetch 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 clearly states the tool's function: get HTTP status and content type for a public URL, with the important caveat that the body is discarded. It is specific about the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

The intended use is implied: use this when you need HTTP status and content type for a public URL and do not need the response body. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative sibling tools, so routing is left 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 behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Title discarded after the call.' It does not explain how existence is determined, whether network access is involved, what the return value looks like, or what side effects, if any, should be expected.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded with the core action. It does not waste words, though the second sentence contributes little beyond restating the generic discard pattern.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and seven seemingly unrelated parameters, the description is far too incomplete. It omits the expected input-to-title mapping, the output format, and any behavioral caveats, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly.

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

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

The schema describes all seven parameters, but none is named or described as the Wikipedia title. The title mentioned in the description has no corresponding input property, and the parameter descriptions are generic 'discarded' boilerplate. This leaves the agent unable to determine which parameter to populate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb and resource: it checks whether a Wikipedia title exists. It is not a tautology and the 'wiki' target is explicit, but it does not differentiate this from sibling URL/shape-check tools in terms of invocation semantics.

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 versus alternatives such as web-fetch, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. There are no examples, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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