ISO country NG

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool returns CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops, and that task text is discarded, which signals a read-only, non-persistent behavior. It does not mention potential costs, rate limits, network access, or authentication, but for a discovery tool the disclosed behavior is at least partially sufficient.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the purpose first, then the return contents, then the key discard behavior. 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?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a useful high-level picture of the return items but does not explain how to choose or omit parameters, nor what the returned CLI setup or MCP hops look like. It is adequate for a simple discovery tool, but not fully complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, and each parameter already explains its own role and whether it is discarded. The description adds only a high-level note that 'Task text discarded', which loosely maps to the query parameter but does not meaningfully expand on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)') and lists what the tool returns, which makes its core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like web-fetch or normalize-url, so some differentiation burden falls on the name and niche qualifier, but the purpose is still clear.

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

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

The phrase 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)' implies the use case: call this when you need Monid gateway setup or remote MCP hop information. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites, so the guidance is only implied rather than actionable decision support.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It honestly discloses that no browser is launched, which is a meaningful side-effect behavior, but it does not state whether the URL is fetched, how 'ok' is determined, or what side effects (if any) occur.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the key behavioral caveat follows immediately.

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

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

For a tool with seven parameters and no annotations or output schema, this description is too thin. It leaves unanswered what parameters to supply, what result is returned, and what exactly the URL check verifies, especially given unrelated-looking parameters like ref, city, feed, and json.

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 fully describes all seven parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying the tool checks a URL. Given high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't clarify which of the many schema fields are relevant to this 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 action and object: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' It also clarifies a key distinguisher, 'No browser is launched,' but does not define what 'can be opened' means or name a sibling tool such as playwright-url-ok, so slight ambiguity remains.

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

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

The 'No browser is launched' clause implies this is for quick checks where browser execution should be avoided, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisite, or comparison to alternatives like fetch-status or playwright-url-ok.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the expression is discarded, which is a useful non-retention trait, but it does not describe output format, error behavior, or whether there are any side effects beyond evaluating and discarding.

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

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

The description is only two short sentences with no filler, and the operation is front-loaded before the discard note. It is efficient and structured, though its terseness contributes to the overall lack of usable detail.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is far from complete. It does not identify which parameter should receive arithmetic text, what the tool returns, or when it should be selected, making correct invocation essentially guesswork.

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 its parameters individually, but the description introduces an 'expression' concept that maps to none of the nine string fields. With additionalProperties false, an arithmetic expression would have to fit one of the named fields, yet none is described as accepting arithmetic, so the description adds confusion rather than parameter meaning.

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

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

The description states a verb and a resource ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but it largely restates the tool name and gives only an example rather than a real scope. It never explains what input carries the expression, what result is returned, or how it relates to the provided schema, so an agent is left guessing what the tool actually accepts.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling validation/hint tools. The only implied signal is that it is for 'a+b style' strings, but no exclusion criteria, alternatives, or invocation context 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one useful transparency statement, 'Page content is not stored,' which addresses retention. However, it does not mention network-fetch behavior, auth requirements, rate limits, or how the many other input params are handled beyond what the schema says.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the privacy-relevant note is kept separate and minimal. Every word earns its place.

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

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

The description explains the main return value and one behavioral guarantee, which is enough for the simple URL-facing case. However, the tool has nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so an agent could be uncertain whether non-URL parameters affect behavior. The schema fills much of the gap, but the overall context is not fully complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The phrase 'for a URL' does help identify the url parameter as the operative one, but the description adds no additional parameter 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 a specific action and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It is unambiguous about what the tool computes, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, and the tool name 'citation' is not directly explained.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of which parameter is the intended primary input. The description simply states what the tool returns, leaving tool selection and invocation strategy entirely to the agent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add a useful privacy guarantee ('No identifiers are retained') and 'Show' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose the output format, error behavior, or whether any external calls are made, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a tool with nine possible inputs.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds the key privacy constraint. Every word earns its place.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 27 sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what classification categories exist, whether all parameters are mutually exclusive, what the function returns, or how it relates to the sibling shape/check tools. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

The input schema already documents all nine parameters with meaningful descriptions, so schema coverage is 100% and the description need not repeat parameter details. The description adds no param-level semantics beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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

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

The description states a concrete action ('Show how this request is classified') and implies a resource, but 'how this request is classified' is vague: it does not define the classification scheme or what the tool actually computes. The name 'compatibility' and the sibling tools like domain-shape, validate-json, and normalize-url hint at a classification utility, but the description does not differentiate this tool from 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The description does not name alternatives, state prerequisites, or explain what kind of request should be routed here. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and the nine loosely connected parameters.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that no WHOIS or ownership data is involved, suggesting a pure syntactic operation. However, it does not explain how extra schema fields are treated, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens with invalid hostnames.

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. The verb and object are front-loaded, and the exclusion of WHOIS/ownership data earns its place by setting important scope boundaries.

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 very clear one-line purpose, the definition is incomplete for actual invocation. There are 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description does not say which field to use, what the split result looks like, or whether multiple fields are allowed. An agent could plausibly pass the wrong 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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that a hostname is the target, which maps to the 'host' parameter, but it does not clarify that among the 9 optional parameters the agent should use 'host' or that the other fields are ignored. This weakens its added value for parameter selection.

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: split a hostname into labels. It also adds a clear boundary by saying 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which distinguishes this from enrichment-style domain tools and makes the tool's role obvious.

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 this tool is for hostname labeling and not for ownership/WHOIS queries, but it never names an alternative tool or explicitly explains when to choose domain-shape over siblings like github-repo-shape, figma-url-shape, or jira-key-shape. The usage context is only implicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose the HTTP method (HEAD), the public nature of the URL, and the restricted output. However, it fails to acknowledge that the input schema contains many unrelated parameters documented as discarded, which is a significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. Every word contributes to stating what the tool does.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description alone is not enough. It doesn't state which parameter is actually used, what the returned status looks like, or how to handle the discarded parameters, leaving an agent to guess.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the operation (HEAD) applied to a URL, but it doesn't explicitly identify `url` as the only effective parameter or explain the role of the other eight optional fields, and the schema's `url` description ('normalize or cite') conflicts with the described 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 ('HEAD'), a resource ('a public URL'), and an output ('return status only'), making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like web-fetch or browser-url-ok by the emphasis on HEAD and status-only, 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?

There is no statement of when to use fetch-status versus alternatives such as web-fetch, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url, and no exclusions or conditions. The only implicit signal is that status-only HEAD requests belong here, which is weak 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only mentions that the path is discarded, which is largely redundant with the schema's path property, and says nothing about whether the operation is local, read-only, what it returns, or how invalid URLs 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 very short and front-loaded, but 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and adds little value. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise, and the second sentence does not meaningfully earn its place.

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

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and nine optional parameters, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, which parameters are actually used, or how to handle invalid or non-Figma URLs, leaving the agent unable to invoke it confidently.

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

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

The schema has 100% parameter coverage, but the description adds meaning by indicating that the relevant input is specifically a Figma file URL, sharpening the generic 'url' property description. It also reinforces that the path input is discarded, though this is partially redundant with 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 names a specific resource ('a Figma file URL') and an action ('Parse'), which helps distinguish it from generic URL or sibling shape tools. However, it does not state what the parse produces or what 'shape' means, and 'Path discarded' is cryptic rather than clarifying.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or github-repo-shape. The intended selection criteria must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'No disk access' is a useful behavioral guarantee. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or the safety criteria, leaving the agent to infer how 'safe' is determined and what the tool returns.

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

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The 'No disk access' clause adds useful behavioral information without extra bulk.

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

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

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and nine optional input properties, the description is incomplete: it does not state the return value, specify which parameter to pass, or clarify why unrelated parameters are present. An agent could invoke it with the wrong field or misinterpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The mismatch between the path-focused description and the many unrelated optional properties (url, city, feed, host, etc.) is not resolved by the description, which keeps this at the baseline.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe' and adds a meaningful qualifier, 'No disk access.' It is clear enough to distinguish a path-shape check from URL-checking siblings, but it does not explicitly name any alternative or define what 'safe' means.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or wiki-title-ok. 'No disk access' weakly implies it is for lightweight syntactic checks, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that city is the relevant input, that other schema fields are discarded, that Open-Meteo is an external dependency, or what the output shape looks like. The schema comments help, but the description itself adds little 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 with no filler and is front-loaded with the main purpose. It is appropriately brief, though it could have used one additional sentence to identify the relevant parameter.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema. The description does not tell the agent which parameter to supply for the place, what the returned coordinates look like, or that unrelated inputs are ignored. This is incomplete for reliable invocation despite the rich schema comments.

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 parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the heavy lifting is done by the input 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 states a specific result: latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. It is unambiguous about the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like weather-hint or timezone.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'for a place' only weakly implies geocoding use, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Parse owner and repo' conveys the core read-only extraction behavior and implies no side effects, but it does not describe the return format or how malformed/non-GitHub URLs 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 a single focused sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the action and target. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is not complete enough. It does not specify which parameter is actually needed, what the parsed result looks like, or how the discarded fields fit in, leaving an agent without key calling 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful clue that the url parameter is expected to be a GitHub repository URL, but it does not clarify how the many unrelated-looking optional parameters relate to the operation.

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 a concrete resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), clearly stating what the tool does. The GitHub URL scope distinguishes it from URL-shape siblings such as figma-url-shape and jira-key-shape without needing to inspect the schema.

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

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

The description implies the tool should be used when an agent has a GitHub URL and needs owner/repo components. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for non-GitHub or other URL shapes, so usage guidance remains mostly implicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal a meaningful behavioral trait: titles are discarded, so the result is a bare count rather than a list of stories. However, it does not disclose return format, network dependency, or failure behavior, leaving the transparency incomplete.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and 'Titles discarded' is a useful qualifier rather than redundant text.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and what inputs it expects, but it leaves the role of the nine optional parameters unexplained. An agent cannot tell whether to call it with no arguments, with a feed URL, or with some other parameter. The core purpose is clear, but the invocation context is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level guidance. The description's mention of discarded titles loosely matches the 'feed' parameter, but it does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters, if any, are relevant to this tool.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: count current Hacker News front-page stories. The note 'Titles discarded' further clarifies that the output is a count, not story metadata. This is enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools, none of which share this narrow 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?

Usage is implied: use the tool when a count of current HN front-page stories is needed. 'Titles discarded' provides a weak when-not signal, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when a different tool should be used instead.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about side effects, return values, or execution behavior. The schema hints that some parameters are 'discarded after the shape check' or 'discarded after the call', but the description itself provides zero 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 extremely short but not appropriately sized because it omits essential information. A single vague phrase does not earn its place as a useful guide; it is under-specified rather than concise in a meaningful way.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide significant context, but it only offers a fragment about timezone names. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the parameters affect the call, or why the parameters are so unrelated to the apparent purpose—making the tool essentially unusable.

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 9 parameters are individually documented. However, the description adds no meaning on top of the schema and does not explain how parameters like 'json' or 'path' relate to IANA timezone names, but it does not need to because the schema already provides full 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 is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') with no verb or resource action, so it does not state what the tool actually does—list, validate, or resolve zones. It vaguely identifies subject matter but fails to distinguish from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', and the input schema's unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) make the purpose even less coherent.

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

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

The phrase 'for clock calls' implies some connection to clock/timezone operations, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references 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 behavioral burden. It does disclose that only group counts are returned, not the full robots.txt, which is useful. But it omits details like how missing robots.txt is handled, whether authentication is needed, or what 'group counts' refers to exactly.

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 core purpose and output are front-loaded. It is concise, though slightly under-specified in a way that reduces 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 has no output schema, no annotations, and a complex 9-parameter input schema. The description does not identify which parameter is used, what the group-count return shape is, or any error behavior, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke it safely and 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not map the 'host' parameter to the robots.txt URL, leaving the relationship between description and schema implicit.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('public robots.txt') and states the result ('return group counts only'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like web-fetch or fetch-status. However, it does not explain which parameter (e.g., host) supplies the URL, leaving a slight gap.

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 this tool is for retrieving robots.txt group counts, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. With 26 sibling tools, an agent needs more direction to choose this tool confidently over web-fetch or fetch-status.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does say 'Key discarded,' which signals non-retention, but it does not state whether the check is local or makes a network call, whether the result is a boolean or an error, or whether any side effects occur. This is too thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 'Key discarded' note is meaningful. It earns each word.

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 shape-check tool, the description still leaves critical gaps: it does not define the expected Jira key format, does not identify the corresponding input parameter, and does not describe the return value. With no output schema and nine optional unrelated parameters, the agent lacks enough information to invoke the tool reliably.

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

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

The description refers to a 'Jira issue key,' but the input schema has no parameter for a Jira issue key; it offers ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query, none of which are described as a Jira key. Schema coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are irrelevant to the tool's stated purpose, so an agent cannot determine what to pass. This is actively misleading.

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 a Jira issue key shape.' This clearly separates it from sibling shape-checkers like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. The phrase 'Key discarded' is an extra behavioral note, not a purpose statement, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any alternative, no mention of what inputs are appropriate, and no exclusion criteria. Given many sibling shape-check tools exist, the agent is left to infer when 'jira-key-shape' is the right choice.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Body discarded,' which is one useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, timeout behavior, or what happens when non-URL parameters are supplied.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A 9-parameter tool with multiple unrelated use cases cannot be adequately described in two short sentences. Important information about the tool's polymorphic behavior is omitted.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a description that covers only one narrow scenario. The schema parameters for city, feed, json, zone, and query are completely unaddressed in the description, making the tool impossible to understand fully without inspecting the schema and inferring intent.

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 explains each parameter clearly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3. No effort is wasted on duplicating parameter details in the description.

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

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL'), which initially seems clear. However, the input schema exposes nine wildly different parameters (city for weather, feed for RSS, json for validation, zone for timezone, query for search text) that have nothing to do with library docs URLs. This makes the stated purpose misleading about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like fetch-status, normalize-url, or weather-hint. The description does not provide conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The only hint is the word 'hint' in the tool name, but that is not explained.

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 transparency burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait, that values are discarded, but it does not clarify whether nested keys are counted, whether the operation has side effects on any memory state, or how empty or invalid input is handled.

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

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

The description is only eight words in two front-loaded sentences, with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to explaining what the tool computes and what it ignores.

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 annotation coverage, and the description does not explain how to select from the nine optional parameters, what count semantics apply, or what the response looks like. The definition is not complete enough for confident invocation without further inference.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover all parameters, but the tool description adds no parameter mapping. The only parameter mentioning JSON is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', which suggests validation rather than counting, and it is unclear whether the agent should pass serialized JSON or use the top-level argument object itself.

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

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

The description states a precise operation: count keys in a JSON object, with the additional qualifier that values are discarded. This verb+resource pairing clearly separates it from 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 use case is implied by the purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. An agent must infer that this tool is for obtaining a key count rather than for validation, normalization, or other sibling operations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a meaningful trait: the tool drops query strings and fragments while returning only origin, host, and path. However, it does not mention potential error behavior, handling of invalid URLs, or how unrelated schema parameters are treated.

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

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

The description is brief and front-loaded, with every sentence carrying information. It loses a point because, given the unusually large and mixed parameter list, a slightly fuller description could have clarified the core URL parameter without becoming verbose.

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

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

The schema exposes nine optional parameters including city, feed, json, zone, and ref, many marked as discarded. The description does not explain why these appear on a URL-normalizing tool, which parameter is the primary input, or what output format to expect beyond three components. No output schema or annotations exist to fill these gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no direct parameter-level meaning beyond stating that URL query and fragment components are dropped; the schema already documents each parameter's purpose.

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

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

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' This clearly distinguishes normalize-url from sibling validation/checking tools like browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, and domain-shape, which focus on validity or shape checks rather than extracting normalized components.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no explicit exclusions, and no mention of preferred use cases. The only behavioral note, 'Query and fragment are dropped,' is a cautionary detail but not a usage guideline for selecting between tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important trait: no browser is launched. But it does not explain how the check is performed, whether a network request is made, or what failure/timeout behavior looks like. This is partial transparency, not 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 description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence earns its place. It is appropriately concise, though it leaves out behavioral and output details that would be covered under 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, nine optional parameters, and a large sibling list, this description is too thin. It does not state what the tool returns, what 'ok' means, or which parameters actually influence the result. The schema hints that many parameters are discarded, but the description itself does not provide enough for confident invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described individually, including notes like 'discarded after the check.' The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' The second sentence, 'No browser is launched,' helps differentiate it from browser-launching siblings like browser-url-ok. However, 'can be opened' is left ambiguous—it does not clarify whether this is a syntax check, DNS check, or HTTP reachability check.

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 context is only implied. 'No browser is launched' suggests this is a lightweight alternative to a real browser-based check, but the description never names alternatives or states when to prefer this tool over siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the notable behavior 'Query discarded,' which indicates input is not retained. However, it does not explain whether the operation is side-effect-free, whether all other schema fields are ignored, or what happens when multiple fields are supplied, leaving an incomplete behavioral picture.

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 concise sentences, with the main purpose first and the behavioral caveat second. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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

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

Given nine optional string parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. An agent cannot confidently determine that `query` is the parameter to populate, what the tool returns, or why the other fields exist. A more complete definition would explicitly name `query` and state that all other inputs are ignored or discarded.

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 mostly restates what the `query` parameter already says in the schema ('Search text; discarded after the length check') without adding clarity about which parameter to use, parameter precedence, or the meaning of the other eight properties.

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

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

The description states a clear operation ('Count characters in a search query') and the name reinforces the resource being measured. It is not a tautology and is specific enough to distinguish the core action, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named sibling counting tools such as memory-key-count, and it leaves open which of the nine schema fields is the intended 'search query'.

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 siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or fetch-status. The description only says what the tool does, not when it should be selected or when a different tool would be more 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?

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only describes a 'catalog' and says nothing about side effects, read-only behavior, return format, permissions, or error behavior. The odd schema notes about values being 'discarded' are not reflected in the tool description at all.

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 sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise in a useful way. It front-loads the only idea it has, yet the rest of the tool definition leaves major gaps.

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

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

The tool has seven parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, but the description does not explain what the agent should pass, what it will receive, or how the parameters relate to the tool's operation. This is inadequate for reliable selection and invocation.

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

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

The input schema provides descriptions for all seven parameters, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, and it does not explain how any of the parameters relate to an HTTP status code catalog.

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 the resource as a catalog of HTTP status codes, which is more specific than the bare name 'status-catalog' and conveys a vague reference purpose. However, it lacks an action verb and does not state whether the tool lists, looks up, validates, or explains status codes, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or web-fetch. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned, so an agent has to guess the intended use case from the noun phrase alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Prompt discarded' discloses that the prompt does not influence the output, which is a useful behavioral trait. It does not clarify whether the nine input parameters are ignored or affect the template, and it says nothing about side effects or return format.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler. The core output is front-loaded, and 'Prompt discarded' is a compact behavioral qualifier.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, yet the description never explains whether arguments are needed, which parameters are relevant, or why they are discarded. An agent cannot confidently choose the correct invocation or predict what the template will contain.

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; each parameter has a schema description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and the schema descriptions read like unrelated fragments (weather hints, URL checks) rather than explaining how the parameters relate to this tool.

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

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

The description states a specific action and output: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is clear about the resource produced. However, it does not explain what the template contains or differentiate from sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

'Prompt discarded' implies the tool is a fixed template generator rather than a prompt processor, giving some usage context. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it, so the guidance is only implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function and gives no information about return format, error behavior, side effects, or the fact that many input schema properties appear unrelated and are described as discarded.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the stated purpose, and it is appropriately short for a simple utility 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?

Despite the simple stated purpose, the description is incomplete for actual invocation: there is no output schema, no parameter mapping for the timezone, and no guidance on expected input format. The 9-parameter schema makes the missing connection especially costly.

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 description coverage is high, the description does not connect its central concept—'named IANA timezone'—to any actual parameter. The schema contains no timezone parameter, and the listed parameters are all described as unrelated or discarded, so an agent cannot determine how to supply the timezone.

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

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

The description clearly states a verb and resource: 'Current time' in a 'named IANA timezone'. It conveys the core purpose and implicitly distinguishes from UTC-only time tools, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate among sibling tools.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like utc-time or iana-zones, and no mention of when not to use it. The description only implies a timezone-related use case without making the selection criteria explicit.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp.' and does not mention that the seven input parameters appear to be discarded or used only for validation, nor does it state whether the operation is read-only or side-effect free. This leaves important invocation behavior 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 extremely concise and gets the core message across in one short sentence. However, it is concise to the point of under-specification, especially given the unusual parameter list in the schema, so it is not a 5.

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

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

Without annotations or an output schema, the description must explain return values and behavioral side effects, but it does not. The presence of seven unrelated-looking parameters, plus the lack of guidance on whether they are required, ignored, or validated, is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The input schema itself provides descriptions for all seven parameters, including clear notes like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'no disk access', so schema coverage is high. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already contains, which is acceptable since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could reconcile these parameters with the tool's timestamp 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 'Current UTC timestamp.' clearly states the tool's core output in a concise way, making it easy for an agent to know what this tool returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like timezone, so it is not quite a perfect 5.

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

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

The description implies that the tool should be used when an agent needs the current UTC time, but it provides no explicit guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. Since there are siblings like timezone that could be confused with this tool, some explicit routing would help, but the basic usage is inferable.

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 the useful non-retention detail that the body is discarded after the check, which is beyond the schema. With no annotations, however, it does not disclose return behavior, error handling for invalid JSON, or whether any external call occurs.

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 check action is front-loaded and the discard behavior is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

There is no output schema and the description never explains what a valid or invalid result looks like. The schema also exposes several seemingly unrelated optional parameters (url, city, feed, path) and no required fields, leaving the agent uncertain about the minimal correct call shape.

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

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

The input schema provides descriptions for all seven parameters, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and leaves the relationship between 'body' and the `json` parameter implicit.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check whether') and resource ('a body is valid JSON'), which is clear and distinct from sibling tools. However, the term 'body' is not explicitly mapped to the `json` input parameter, and the return result is not stated.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives or whether it should be preferred for pre-validation. The only implied context is the tool's name and purpose; no exclusions or prerequisites 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only hints at an external API dependency via 'Open-Meteo'. It omits that eight of nine schema parameters are specified as 'discarded', how failures (unknown city, no network) surface, and what the returned temperature value looks like.

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

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

A single eight-word sentence that front-loads the purpose and names the data source with zero filler. It is appropriately compact, though slightly under-specified for a nine-parameter tool, a gap captured under contextual completeness.

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

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

Given nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is far from sufficient. An agent cannot determine which parameter to supply in practice, what the call returns, or what error behavior to expect for an invalid city.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters and their discard behavior. The description adds mild value by signaling that `city` is the operative parameter for the temperature result, but it doesn't compensate further.

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 function — returning the current temperature for a city — and identifies the data source (Open-Meteo), which distinguishes it from siblings like geo-hint, timezone, and utc-time. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb ('Retrieves...'), and it doesn't describe the response shape, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to invoke this tool versus siblings such as geo-hint, web-fetch, fetch-status, or timezone, and no alternatives or exclusions are named. An agent must infer from the name alone that weather lookups are the intended use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the body is discarded and only status/content-type is returned. It does not mention redirect handling, timeouts, network side effects, or error responses, so disclosure is incomplete.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with the key output front-loaded and the limitation in the second sentence. There is no filler or repetition.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this is incomplete. It does not say which parameter to supply, how the extra parameters relate to the fetch, or what the returned status/content-type 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 is 3; each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify that `url` is the relevant parameter given eight other unrelated-looking optional fields.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's core function: obtaining HTTP status and content type for a public URL, and it adds that the body is discarded. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which keeps it from a 5.

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

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

Usage is implied: the agent can infer to use this when it needs status/content-type for a public URL and does not need the response body. However, it never names alternatives or gives when-not-to-use guidance, and 'body discarded' is more a behavioral caveat than a routing rule.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the title is discarded after the call, which communicates a stateless, non-retaining behavior. However, it does not mention whether the check performs a network request, what happens for missing titles, or what the return value conveys.

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

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

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first states the action and target; the second adds a useful behavioral note. 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify which parameter to pass, what 'exists' means operationally, whether network access is involved, or what the response looks like. The ambiguous schema makes this lack more damaging.

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 is cluttered with many unrelated properties and even two title-like fields, while the description only says 'Title' without naming the required `wiki-title` parameter. The schema itself provides some help through the required field and property description, but the description adds no disambiguation and does not compensate for the low coverage of the large parameter list.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('check') and a clear resource ('whether a Wikipedia title exists'), so the tool's core purpose is immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fetch-status and web-fetch by narrowing scope to Wikipedia title existence.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusion cases. The only usage signal is implicit: use it when you need to check a Wikipedia title, but nothing differentiates it from similar-looking tools in the sibling list.

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