ISO country PA

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that 'Task text discarded' and lists the returned artifacts, which warns an agent not to expect task-dependent behavior. However, it stays silent on side effects, auth requirements, cost implications, or whether the tool makes network calls, so transparency is partial.

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

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

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the critical discard warning placed last. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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

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

The description lists return artifacts but no output format or structure, and there is no output schema. It also does not explain why six diverse parameters appear or how they relate to the Monid lookup. An agent can rely on schema descriptions, but the overall picture of how to invoke and interpret results 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Task text discarded' echoes the schema's 'discarded after' notes but adds no new parameter meaning. It also does not clarify which parameter, if any, drives the Monid lookup, though the schema descriptions themselves are explicit.

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: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)', and enumerates what it returns (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This is clear and distinguishable from siblings by topic, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention any alternative, prerequisite, or selection condition, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name and the word 'Find'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one key behavior—no browser is launched—but it does not say whether the tool makes a network request, performs a syntax-only check, or has any side effects. For a tool that checks URL openness, this leaves important behavior undisclosed.

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 wasted words, and the 'No browser is launched' clause provides valuable behavioral differentiation. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could benefit from additional context without becoming bloated.

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 annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not sufficient. It does not explain which parameter to use, what result format the agent should expect, whether a network call occurs, or how this tool differs from the many sibling URL-related tools. The unrelated schema parameters compound this ambiguity.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so a baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The schema descriptions are also somewhat disconnected from the URL-focused description, but they do document every parameter, so the description is not required to compensate.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a useful qualifier ('No browser is launched'), which helps separate it from a browser-launching sibling like playwright-url-ok. However, 'can be opened' is ambiguous—it could mean URL syntax, reachability, or renderability—and the input schema's many unrelated fields (city, json, zone, query) muddy 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as playwright-url-ok, fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The only hint is 'No browser is launched,' which implies it is not for browser automation, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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 side effects and behavior, but it only says the expression is discarded. It does not mention return value, permissions, side effects, or how the unrelated schema parameters factor into the operation.

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, but the second sentence is cryptic and the overall under-specification means brevity is not an asset here. It reads more like a stub than a useful definition.

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, no annotations, and 27 siblings, this description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide, what the tool returns, or why it exists alongside the other validators.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the tool description does not connect any parameter to the advertised arithmetic evaluation. The absence of an expression parameter while the description says 'a+b style arithmetic' actively confuses 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 claims a specific purpose, 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic,' but the input schema exposes no expression or arithmetic parameters—only ref/url/city/feed/host/json/path/query. This mismatch makes the tool's actual purpose ambiguous and does not distinguish it from the many sibling shape/URL validators.

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 calc-eval instead of a sibling such as validate-json or wiki-title-ok. The phrase 'Expression discarded' hints at a behavior but provides no decision rule or alternative.

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 add the useful detail that page content is not stored, but it omits important behavioral information such as whether the URL is fetched over the network, how redirects are handled, what happens on invalid URLs, or how the multiple optional parameters interact.

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 concise, with two short sentences and no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral note is relevant and efficient.

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

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the lack of annotations, and the presence of seven optional parameters, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain the output format, which parameters are required for meaningful use, or how multiple supplied parameters are handled, leaving an agent uncertain about correct 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 high at 100%, with each parameter already explained individually. The description adds context by identifying the URL as the source of host, scheme, and HTTP status, but it does not go beyond the schema for the remaining parameters, 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 clearly states the tool's primary function: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It is specific and informative, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from closely related siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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 instead of related alternatives such as fetch-status, web-fetch, or normalize-url. The sentence 'Page content is not stored' hints at a safe, lightweight use case, but the description never states explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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, but it only adds 'No identifiers are retained.' This is a useful privacy trait, but it does not disclose what side effects occur, whether any external call is made, what the output looks like, or why values 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 very short and front-loaded: the core action appears in the first sentence, followed by a concise privacy clarifier. It earns a high conciseness score, though the brevity contributes to the vagueness.

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 is too thin. It does not explain what classifications are possible, how output is structured, or why so many distinct input types are handled by one tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning; it only repeats a privacy theme already present in individual parameter descriptions such as 'discarded after the shape 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 verb and object ('Show how this request is classified'), so it is not a tautology, but it is vague: it never defines what 'classification' means, what categories are returned, or what 'this request' refers to. It also does not distinguish the tool from the many sibling shape/classification 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate-json, normalize-url, geo-hint, or domain-shape. The schema implies a broad multi-input classifier, but the description does not state a use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does add a behavioral boundary: it will not return WHOIS or ownership information. However, it does not state what the returned labels look like, edge-case behavior, or that most schema parameters are discarded after the shape check.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence states the core behavior and the key limitation with no filler. It is concise without sacrificing the most important distinguishing 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 tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. The agent cannot tell which parameter to populate or what the splitter returns, especially given the unrelated-looking schema fields.

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 the hostname intent but does not explain why the schema exposes unrelated parameters such as city, feed, json, and query, nor how they relate to the stated domain-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 gives a specific operation — 'Split a hostname into labels' — with a clear resource, and the 'without WHOIS or ownership data' clause sets it apart from enrichment-style domain tools. It is not a 5 because the description ignores the nine-parameter schema, so the exact scope of the tool is still ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided for when to prefer this tool over siblings such as github-repo-shape, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. The only hint is a negative one ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which does not state a use condition or alternative.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it does disclose the core behavior: an HTTP HEAD request to a public URL that returns only status. It does not mention redirect behavior, timeout/error handling, or the fact that many schema parameters appear to be discarded, but for a simple read-only probe it provides the most important traits.

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 tight sentence with the key operation and output front-loaded; there is no fluff. It is concise, though the brevity leaves behavioral and routing questions to be answered elsewhere.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is incomplete. It does not define what 'status' looks like, does not explain which parameter to pass, and gives no routing guidance among the many sibling URL/checking tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so according to the baseline the description does not need to add parameter detail; it adds none. The schema itself already documents that most parameters are discarded after checks, which is useful. No deduction beyond baseline is warranted.

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 (public URL), and the output (status only), which is enough to separate it from content-fetching siblings like web-fetch or browser-url-ok. However, the input schema also lists many non-URL parameters (ref, city, json, zone, query), so the description captures only the URL-facing behavior and may underrepresent 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 explicit guidance about when to prefer fetch-status over siblings such as browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or web-fetch. The phrase 'status only' weakly implies a lightweight availability check, but it never states exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one trait ('Path discarded') but does not say whether this tool makes network calls, returns a boolean or shape, has side effects, or what constitutes a valid Figma URL.

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

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

The text is very short and front-loaded, but the second sentence, 'Path discarded,' is cryptic and does not clearly earn its place. It may mislead an agent into thinking the 'path' parameter is the primary input.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this two-sentence description is insufficient. It omits the return contract, validation criteria, and the role of the unrelated-looking parameters, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail and, given 9 optional parameters, does not indicate which field should carry the Figma URL or how the other parameters are meant to be used.

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

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

The description names a specific action ('Parse') and target resource ('Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools such as github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. However, it does not state what the parse result looks like, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous, 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus normalize-url, browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or other URL-related siblings. The only usage cue is implicit in the tool name and the phrase 'Figma file URL'.

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 a heavy burden and does disclose a key behavior: no disk access, meaning it is a pure shape check. It also honestly says 'looks safe' rather than guaranteeing safety. But it does not describe the return value or failure behavior, so it remains 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose comes first and the key side-effect disclaimer is stated immediately after, making this exceptionally efficient.

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

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

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a surprising 9-parameter schema, yet the description explains only path and says nothing about return values. The mismatch between the narrow description and the broad schema leaves an agent unable to fully understand when or how to use the other parameters.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already individually documented. The description adds meaning only for path ('looks safe', no disk access) and does not clarify the role of the other eight parameters, leaving agents unsure whether they are alternative inputs or irrelevant.

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: checking whether a path looks safe, and clarifies it does no disk access. This makes its core function clear, but it ignores the many other properties in the schema (url, city, json, etc.), so the stated purpose is narrower than the input schema suggests.

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 use when you need a side-effect-free path safety check, and 'No disk access' signals it is a safe pre-check. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling validators like browser-url-ok or normalize-url, and offers no exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the core function. It does not mention that this may involve a network call, what input actually identifies the place, whether any parameters are discarded, or what the output format will be. Several schema fields explicitly say 'discarded', but this is not surfaced in the description.

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

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

One short sentence is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no annotations. It sacrifices necessary information for brevity, so it is not an appropriately sized definition.

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 output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides no input mapping, no output description, and no behavioral caveats. It is far from enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The word 'place' loosely maps to the 'city' parameter, but with nine unrelated-looking optional parameters, the description does not help select or fill the right one.

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

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

The phrase 'Latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo' conveys a geocoding purpose and names a provider, which is more than tautological. However, it lacks a clear verb and does not explain how the tool relates to its nine input parameters, making the purpose only vaguely useful for an agent.

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 geo-hint versus siblings like weather-hint or timezone. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits a given request.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Parse' and does not explain what happens with invalid GitHub URLs, whether it validates the URL, what it returns beyond owner/repo, or that the many other input parameters 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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the core purpose immediately and every word contributes 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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only covers the basic parse intent. It omits return format, required parameter behavior, invalid-input handling, and the fact that most parameters appear to be 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context that the URL should be a GitHub URL and that the meaningful extracted result is owner and repo, but it does not clarify which parameter is required or how the unrelated parameters interact.

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 ('Parse'), a specific resource ('owner and repo'), and the input source ('GitHub URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape by naming the exact output and input domain.

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

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

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to extract owner and repo from a GitHub URL. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or what to do when the URL is not a GitHub URL.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one behavioral trait—'Titles discarded'—but it does not mention network dependency, error behavior, caching, or whether the optional parameters affect the count. For a tool that likely fetches live web data, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, with two short sentences and no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and 'Titles discarded' earns its place by setting a clear expectation about the output. Nothing extraneous is included.

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

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

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and clarify the role of the many optional parameters. 'Count ... stories' implies a numeric result, but the agent gets no guidance on whether to pass parameters, what the response looks like, or what happens if the fetch fails. The nine-parameter schema makes the lack of contextualization more 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. The description does not clarify which, if any, of the nine optional parameters are relevant to the HN count, but the schema already documents each parameter individually.

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 exact operation: counting current Hacker News front-page stories. It also adds 'Titles discarded', which usefully clarifies that the result is just a count and not a list of titles. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as web-fetch or fetch-status, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The 'Titles discarded' hint implies a limitation but does not tell the agent when this tool should or should not be selected. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions.

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 only says 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' and does not explain return format, side effects, filtering behavior, or whether the call is read-only. The schema's notes about discarded values appear in the structured schema, not in the description.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core topic, though it is arguably too sparse to be fully actionable; that under-specification is 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what a call returns and when to use it. It does neither, and the schema parameters appear mostly unrelated to IANA zones, making the tool even harder 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description contributes no parameter-level meaning. The description does not clarify which parameters affect the returned zones or how to request a specific zone, but the schema already documents each 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 identifies the resource (IANA timezone names) and hints at use ('for clock calls'), but it lacks a verb that defines an actual operation. It is more of a noun-phrase label than a clear statement of what the tool does, and it only weakly differentiates from sibling timezone tools.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezone or utc-time. 'For clock calls' implies some relevance but does not state any condition, exclusion, or procedure for picking this tool over siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description at least conveys a public read operation and a summarized return ('counts only'), which gives agents a basic safety picture. It does not disclose which parameters are actually used, behavior on missing robots.txt, redirects, or that most schema fields are irrelevant, leaving significant behavioral context unstated.

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

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

The description is one front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the action and key return constraint appear immediately. It is concise, but the brevity leaves critical mapping details unstated, so it is not a perfect example.

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 heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is not enough. It omits the input-to-robots mapping, failure behavior, and any relationship to the many web-fetch and URL siblings, so an agent lacks necessary context for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but none of the generic parameter descriptions mention robots.txt or link to the tool's purpose. The description does not say whether to supply url, host, or a page URL, so an agent cannot reliably choose the right field among the nine.

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 fetch action on a public robots.txt and narrows the return to group counts, which helps distinguish it from generic web-fetch or URL-check siblings. It is specific as a one-line purpose, though it does not define what 'group counts' means or which input selects the target site.

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 getting robots.txt group counts rather than full content, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as web-fetch. An agent must infer the use case from the tool name and the single sentence.

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 does disclose that the key is discarded, suggesting a no-retention, non-persistent validation behavior. However, it does not state the return value, failure modes, or whether any other input data is retained.

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, with two short sentences and no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second adds a 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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only covers purpose and disposal behavior. It omits the expected return value, the shape rules, error behavior, and which parameter should receive the Jira issue key. The description is far too thin for the tool's complexity and mismatched schema.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% description coverage for all nine parameters, the tool description's central concept, the Jira issue key, does not map to any parameter in the schema. There is no 'key' or 'jiraKey' field, so an agent cannot determine which input to populate. The description adds confusion rather than clarifying 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 clearly states a specific action and resource: check the shape of a Jira issue key. It distinguishes this tool from sibling shape checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, it does not define what a valid Jira issue key shape is, so the purpose is clear but slightly under-specified.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, which implies a use case but does not help an agent choose among sibling validators.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly says the body is discarded and implies a read-only status check. It does not mention redirect behavior, error cases, or whether a network request is actually made, but the key body-discard behavior is present.

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 core operation front-loaded and the caveat immediately after. There is no fluff, repetition, or schema restating, so the description is appropriately concise.

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

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

Given nine optional parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many closely related sibling tools, this single-sentence description is insufficient. It does not specify relevant parameters, exact return format, or how it differs from generic fetch/status tools, leaving an agent with significant ambiguity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level guidance and does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters should carry the 'library docs URL'; the schema names 'url', which helps, but the connection to the tool description is left 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 concrete output ('HTTP status') and a specific input domain ('public library docs URL'), and it adds a behavioral note that the body is discarded. This is clear enough to mostly distinguish it from generic URL tools, though it does not name sibling tools or define what counts as a library docs URL.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided relative to siblings like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. The only implied context is the 'public library docs URL' phrase, so an agent must infer when this should be selected over alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait: values are discarded, so only key presence matters. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid JSON, or what the output format is, though the main behavior is reasonably transparent for a simple counting 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, both of which earn their place: the first states the operation, the second provides a key behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded and contains no 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?

Despite having nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully support reliable invocation. It fails to specify the return format, how the JSON object is supplied, and how errors are surfaced, making it incomplete for the tool's actual complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters represents the JSON object to count, leaving the mapping ambiguous.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific operation: count keys in a JSON object while discarding values. This is distinguishable from sibling tools like validate-json, but the description does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer to call this when it needs the number of keys in a JSON object. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no alternatives are mentioned despite relevant siblings like validate-json.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core output and the drop behavior for query/fragment, but it does not mention network behavior, invalid-input handling, or that the many other schema fields appear irrelevant to URL normalization.

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 main output is front-loaded, and the drop behavior is the only secondary detail included; both earn their place.

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

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

Despite a simple core behavior, the schema exposes nine optional parameters that look like leftovers from other tools (city, feed, json, zone, etc.), and there is no output schema. The description does not clarify which parameters are actually relevant or what the return structure 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little to parameter meaning, and its 'Query... dropped' wording could be confused with the separate 'query' 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 verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' This is far from a tautology and clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling URL checkers and fetchers by focusing on URL decomposition rather than validation or fetching.

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 behavior statement implies the tool is for extracting origin/host/path while discarding query and fragment, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. With many sibling URL-related tools, explicit routing would have helped.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully reveals that no browser is launched, which is a meaningful behavioral trait and prevents the agent from assuming a heavy browser context. However, it does not disclose whether a network request is actually made, whether the operation is read-only, or what side effects or response behavior to expect, so the behavioral picture remains 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, with two short sentences that communicate the essential purpose and the key behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. The only reason it does not score 5 is that the terse phrasing leaves out context that would likely be needed for correct tool selection and invocation, such as what the tool returns or which parameter to prioritize.

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 input parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only states a vague check on a URL and the lack of a browser launch. It does not explain expected return values, potential network effects, error conditions, or which parameters are relevant to the primary check. For a tool with this parameter complexity, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret results.

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 effectively 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, nor does it clarify the relationship between the stated 'URL' focus and parameters like ref, city, feed, host, json, and path. This is acceptable because the schema already documents each parameter, but the description adds no extra semantic value.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks whether a URL can be opened, which conveys the core purpose and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like browser-url-ok by noting that no browser is launched. However, it does not explicitly define what 'can be opened' means or fully differentiate from fetch-status or web-fetch, so it stops slightly short of a 5.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch. It states 'No browser is launched,' which hints at a lightweight use case, but it does not explicitly say when this tool is preferred or when another sibling should be used. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the query is discarded, which is a useful data-handling detail, but it does not clarify return behavior, error handling, or whether non-query parameters are 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 sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity leaves some behavioral 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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not state what is returned, which parameter is required, or how the other parameters are handled. An agent cannot fully predict invocation behavior from 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'Count characters' framing for the query parameter, but it does not explain why eight other optional parameters exist or how they relate to the count 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 (Count) and resource (characters in a search query), making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling count tools, but the search-query scope is distinct enough to be recognizable.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory-key-count, hn-front-count, or calc-eval. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals 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 carries the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only describes the catalog's content. It does not state whether the call is read-only, whether supplied values are discarded, or what output the agent should expect; the input schema's 'discarded' notes are not part of the description.

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

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

The description is a single brief sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than elegantly concise. It front-loads the topic yet leaves out operational detail, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 an output schema or annotations, the description needs to explain return values and invocation context but does not. The 100% schema coverage documents inputs, yet those inputs appear unrelated to HTTP status codes, leaving an agent without enough information to confidently select or invoke the tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable because the schema handles it; however, the description also fails to connect these heterogeneous parameters to the stated status-code catalog 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 identifies the resource as a catalog of common HTTP status codes, and the HTTP scope does narrow the tool name. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never explicitly says whether the tool lists codes, looks up meanings, or validates against 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 call this tool versus siblings such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent must guess 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 the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the prompt is discarded and that the tool simply returns a template, implying a read-only/stateless operation. However, it does not clarify how the nine schema parameters are handled or whether the output is fixed, so transparency is only partial.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded: the operative action appears in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a useful caveat. No filler words are present, though the brevity contributes to the incompleteness.

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 context, so the description should explain the returned template and input expectations. It does not describe the three steps, whether any parameter is required, or what will happen with the nine optional parameters, leaving an agent with too much ambiguity 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'Prompt discarded,' which is a reasonable baseline when the schema carries the detail.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it returns a three-step thinking template. It is not a tautology and is distinct from the sibling validators, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over those tools.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to call this tool instead of the many sibling tools. The only extra instruction, 'Prompt discarded,' is a behavior caveat, not usage direction.

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

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

The description discloses only that the current time is returned; it does not state output format, invalid-timezone behavior, or that the schema parameters appear to be discarded or irrelevant. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides too little operational detail.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise at the cost of omitting necessary operational details.

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

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

The definition is functionally incomplete: the input schema is unrelated to the stated purpose, no output schema or annotations exist, and no connection is made to siblings such as iana-zones or utc-time. An agent cannot determine how to invoke this tool correctly.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, every documented parameter such as ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, env, and query is unrelated to the described timezone purpose. The description adds no guidance on how to supply the named IANA timezone, so an agent cannot map the stated purpose to a usable input.

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

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

The sentence 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' states a specific action and resource, so it is not a tautology. However, the schema has no parameter that can carry a timezone name, which makes the stated purpose unsupported and confusing to an agent trying to call the tool.

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 iana-zones or utc-time, and no exclusions or examples are provided. The description implies only that the tool returns a time, but it does not explain how to select a timezone or when this tool is preferable.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It says only that a UTC timestamp is returned and does not disclose that the seven input parameters are largely ignored/discarded, what format the timestamp uses, or whether the call has side effects. It adds little beyond the tool name, though it does at least identify the output as a timestamp.

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 four words and immediately front-loads the core meaning. There is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately terse for a trivial operation, though it is a fragment rather than a full sentence.

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 seven input parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal to orient an agent. It does not explain that parameters are discarded, how to invoke the tool, what timestamp format is returned, or how it relates to sibling tools. This is a major completeness gap for a tool with this much schema complexity.

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, and those descriptions are fairly detailed (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access'), so schema coverage is high. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries that burden. It still does not explain why a UTC-time tool accepts unrelated params like 'city' or 'feed'.

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

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

The description states the tool's core output: 'Current UTC timestamp.' This clearly conveys a resource (UTC time) and an implied action (get current timestamp). It does not explicitly use a verb or differentiate itself from the sibling 'timezone' tool, but the main 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'timezone' or other time-related siblings. No exclusions or context are provided. The only implied usage is 'if you need the current UTC time,' 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one side effect: 'The body is discarded,' indicating the input is not retained. However, it never states what the tool returns, whether validation is syntax-only, whether errors are reported, or how the `json` parameter relates to the 'body.' With no output schema, these details are important.

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

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

The description is only two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the key side effect stated second. There is no filler or repetition. This is an appropriately concise structure for a simple validation 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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description omits the return contract and how to map inputs to the nine-parameter schema. The eight non-json parameters are especially unaddressed, leaving an agent unsure which parameters are relevant. The description is too minimal for the actual schema and context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter detail. The schema itself describes `json` as 'JSON text to validate,' but the description calls the input a 'body,' creating some ambiguity. The eight other parameters are each described in the schema, but their relevance to JSON validation is unexplained by 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape/URL/status checkers. However, it does not map the 'body' to the actual `json` parameter in the schema, and the schema also lists eight other unrelated optional parameters. The high-level purpose is clear, but the input target is not fully precise.

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 validate-json versus alternatives such as domain-shape, file-path-ok, or browser-url-ok. The description gives no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names. The only hint is the name and the generic phrase 'body,' so the agent must infer the use case.

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 mentions the data source (Open-Meteo) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what units the temperature is returned in, whether network failures can occur, or whether any of the parameters are ignored or discarded. The parameter descriptions mention 'discarded after the call' but this is not reflected in the main 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It immediately conveys the core function and data source without 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?

The tool has nine parameters but no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain which parameters are relevant, how they are used, and what the agent should expect back. The description only covers 'city' and completely ignores the other eight parameters, leaving the agent with an unclear picture of how to call or interpret this tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has its own description, so the schema already explains each field. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond identifying 'city' as the relevant input. Because the schema covers the parameters, a 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 clearly states the tool's function: returning current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the provider name adds useful context that distinguishes it from sibling tools like geo-hint. However, the description does not explain why the input schema contains eight other seemingly unrelated parameters, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geo-hint or web-fetch. The description only implies weather-related use from the tool name and text, and it does not mention exclusions or conditions under which 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, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses that the body is discarded and that only status/content type is returned, implying a read-only network request. However, it does not mention failure modes, redirects, rate limits, or the fact that several input parameters are simply discarded after a shape check.

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

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

Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the key behavioral caveat (body discarded) in the second sentence. 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?

Given seven optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-sentence description leaves an agent without enough guidance to reliably construct a call or know which parameter applies to the stated URL check. The description also omits return format details and parameter selection rules.

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 seven parameters in full, so the schema carries most of the semantic weight. The description adds no per-parameter meaning and fails to clarify how a city name, JSON text, or path relate to 'a public URL.' Because schema_description_coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but no extra value is added.

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 behavior—reports HTTP status and content type for a public URL—and explicitly notes the body is discarded, which gives agents a concrete action. It does not name any sibling tools or discuss how this differs from fetch-status or normalize-url, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to prefer web-fetch over related tools or what contexts are unsuitable (e.g., private URLs, need for body content). The only embedded constraint is 'public URL,' but no exclusionary or alternative information 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?

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the title is discarded after the call, signaling that no state or input is retained. This goes meaningfully beyond the bare annotations.

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 core purpose and then adds the behavioral note about discarding the title, which is efficient and easy to parse.

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

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

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the result, or which input parameter is relevant. Combined with the title-to-parameter mismatch, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke the tool and understand the outcome.

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 is fully documented at the property level, but the description references a 'Wikipedia title' while no schema property is named 'title'. The agent is not told which parameter should carry the title, creating a mapping gap between the described purpose and the actual schema.

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

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

The description states a clear, specific action: check whether a Wikipedia title exists. The verb 'Check' plus the resource 'Wikipedia title' makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status.

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

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

The description implies the tool should be used when the agent needs to verify whether a Wikipedia title exists, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives to prefer. The usage context is inferable but not articulated relative to the sibling tools.

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