ISO country PH

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explicitly stating 'Task text discarded' and enumerating the returned artifacts. This usefully warns the agent that conversational/task input is ignored and that the tool only returns documentation hop information. No contradiction with 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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the output list is concrete, and the discard warning is a meaningful additional constraint rather than repetition.

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

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

The description names the output artifacts, which is important since there is no output schema. However, it does not explain what Monid is or what 'remote MCP hops' means, and it gives no context for when an agent would need this gateway. Given the 7-parameter surface and missing output schema, a bit more context would help.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented structurally. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, but the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and lists concrete outputs (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). It is distinct from the sibling tools, none of which mention Monid or a pay-per-call gateway. However, 'Monid' and 'pay-per-call tool gateway' are left unexplained, so it is not 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 implies the tool is for retrieving setup/usage information about the Monid gateway, but it never explicitly says when to use it or when not to. It also provides no alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an important non-obvious trait: no browser is launched, implying a lightweight read-only check. But it does not mention network behavior, side effects, timeouts, auth requirements, or response semantics, so disclosure is partial.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler. The key behavioral qualifier 'No browser is launched' is front-loaded and earns its place. Appropriate size for the apparent simplicity of the core action.

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 many parameters (url, ref, city, json, path, host, etc.) and several sibling tools, yet the description does not explain how those parameters relate to the URL check or what the tool returns. There is no output schema and no error-behavior guidance, so the surrounding context is thin for an agent to call it correctly in varied cases.

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 eight parameters, giving near-complete coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already fills that role, so a baseline 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 clear action ('check whether') and resource ('a URL'), and 'No browser is launched' helps position it against browser-based siblings like playwright-url-ok. It leaves vague what 'can be opened' means exactly (HTTP status, DNS, robots), so it 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?

The 'No browser is launched' sentence is an implicit usage cue: use this for a URL check that does not require a browser, distinguishing it from playwright-url-ok. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to the many sibling 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says the expression is discarded. It does not disclose the return value, supported operators, error behavior, or whether the tool has any side effects.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is under-specified, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness or structure failure.

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 must explain how to invoke the tool and what it returns; it does neither. The absence of any parameter for the expression makes correct invocation impossible.

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. However, the description never connects the arithmetic expression to any of the nine schema properties, so an agent still cannot determine how to supply the expression.

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 verb and resource: 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic', which distinguishes it from the sibling shape-check and fetch tools. However, the purpose is undermined because the input schema has no parameter that clearly carries an arithmetic expression, and 'Expression discarded' leaves it unclear whether a result is actually returned.

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 any sibling. The implied use case is simple arithmetic, but there is no context, no prerequisite, and no exclusion or alternative mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description itself must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does reveal one meaningful trait: page content is not stored. It does not mention live network behavior, redirect handling, rate limits, or error behavior, so the disclosure 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the output values and no filler. Every sentence adds 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 a large parameter surface, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not say which parameters to supply, what the response shape is, or how it relates to the sibling URL tools, leaving an agent to infer too much.

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 the parameters. The description adds only that the tool acts 'for a URL', which helps identify the main parameter but does not explain the role of the other input 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 names a concrete action and resource: it returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. This is non-tautological and specific enough to be useful, though it does not explicitly distinguish citation from sibling tools 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 choose this tool over siblings such as web-fetch, fetch-status, or normalize-url, nor about when not to use it. The 'not stored' sentence hints at a privacy-conscious use case but is not framed as usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and data handling. It does add a meaningful privacy guarantee ('No identifiers are retained') and the verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but it omits details about external calls, output format, or any other behavioral effects.

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

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

Two short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the privacy guarantee in the second sentence. There is no filler or redundant restatement; every word earns its place.

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

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

The tool has 9 heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must explain what the classification output looks like and how the parameters are used. It does neither. An agent cannot reliably predict the result or know how 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high coverage and yields the baseline score of 3.

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

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

The description names an action ('Show') and a subject ('how this request is classified'), but 'classified' is never defined. It does not say what kind of classification is being produced, what categories exist, or how it differs from numerous sibling classifier tools like domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or validate-json.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 27 sibling tools. The privacy note is useful, but it does not help an agent decide when to call compatibility rather than normalize-url, validate-json, file-path-ok, or the others.

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. It discloses one useful trait: no WHOIS or ownership lookup. It does not describe the return shape, invalid-hostname behavior, or whether it is read-only, but the word 'split' suggests a pure 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' is meaningful.

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 output schema or annotations, yet the description only covers hostname splitting. It leaves agents uncertain about which parameter to use and what the result for the other parameters would be.

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 guidance and does not clarify why the schema exposes eight other optional fields (ref, url, city, etc.) when the tool is described as a hostname splitter.

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 ('split') and resource ('a hostname'), and defines the output ('labels'). It also distinguishes itself from ownership/WHOIS lookups and from sibling URL/shape tools.

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

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

The intended use is implied: call when you need hostname labels without ownership data. However, it never explicitly states when to use this over alternatives such as normalize-url or web-fetch, nor does it name any exclusion 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 and does reveal meaningful behavior: it uses HEAD, restricts to public URLs, and returns only status. It omits redirects, timeouts, error behavior, and the fact that most schema parameters appear unrelated or discarded, so it is only partially transparent.

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

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

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with zero filler. It is appropriately compact, though arguably too terse for a nine-parameter 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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description must do more. It doesn't explain return-value semantics, which parameter matters, or how to choose this over sibling tools, 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 schema already documents all nine optional parameters and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail and doesn't state that `url` is the parameter to populate for 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 names a specific verb (HEAD), a resource type (public URL), and the output (status only), so the core operation is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like web-fetch or browser-url-ok, but 'status only' already implies a narrow scope.

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

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

The wording implies the tool is for lightweight status checks where a response body is not needed, but it names no alternative tools and gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions. Given several sibling fetch/check tools, explicit routing would be valuable.

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 must disclose behavior itself. It discloses only that the path is discarded, but says nothing about whether the URL is fetched, what happens for invalid URLs, whether other parameters are ignored, or what the tool returns. The single behavioral claim is helpful but far from 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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. It is not bloated, but the terseness 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?

Given the complexity of a 9-parameter, fully optional schema, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what a shape-check result looks like, which parameter holds the Figma URL, or what 'Path discarded' means in practice. An agent would struggle 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds only the ambiguous 'Path discarded', which does not clarify which of the 9 parameters should be provided, and it sits awkwardly next to the schema's `path` parameter described as 'File path to 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 identifies a specific action ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from siblings like github-repo-shape or normalize-url. However, it never defines what 'shape' means or what the result of parsing is, and the cryptic 'Path discarded' leaves room for confusion.

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 normalize-url, domain-shape, or other URL/shape siblings. No alternatives are named, no exclusions are stated, and no context is given about which kind of input calls for this tool.

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 the important fact that there is no disk access, but it never explains what the safety check verifies, whether it returns a boolean or an error, or what side effects are absent beyond disk access. This is too vague for an agent to predict behavior confidently.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence and adds the safety-relevant non-behavior in the second. There is no filler, though the extreme brevity leaves out important 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?

This is a simple tool, but there is no output schema and no required parameters, so the description must explain what the tool returns and how to invoke it. It does neither, nor does it specify what 'safe' means. The combination of vague description, irrelevant optional parameters, and missing return-value details makes the definition 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema lists eight parameters unrelated to path checking, and no parameter is required. The only relevant parameter, 'path', is described only as 'File path to check', with no guidance on format, expectations, or why it is not marked required. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, and the cluttered schema makes correct invocation harder rather than easier.

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.' It also adds a clarifying non-behavior, 'No disk access,' which helps distinguish it from filesystem-touching tools. However, 'looks safe' is ambiguous about what exactly is being validated, so it is not a perfect 5.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or wiki-title-ok. The 'No disk access' note hints at a boundary but does not explain when this tool is preferable or what other tools 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?

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It only reveals 'via Open-Meteo' and the output concept; it does not explain that most schema fields are unrelated or discarded, what happens for unknown places, network dependency, or the response format. This is under-disclosure, though not a direct contradiction of 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 one short sentence with no fluff, which earns some credit. However, it is a fragment that lacks an imperative or clear structural front-loading, and its brevity comes at the expense of necessary context.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine which input to supply, what the tool returns, or how it differs from related sibling tools. The description must provide substantially more operational 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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and fails to connect 'place' to any specific field such as 'city'. Still, the schema itself provides descriptions for all parameters, so the gap is not in schema coverage.

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

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

The description names the output resource ('Latitude and longitude') and the external source ('Open-Meteo'), so the core purpose is inferable. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a clear action statement, and it does not specify which schema parameter represents 'a place', especially given many unrelated parameters like 'json', 'path', and 'zone'.

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 geo-hint versus alternatives such as weather-hint or timezone. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing cues beyond the vague phrase 'for a place'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Parse' suggests a local, read-only operation, but the description does not disclose the return shape, how malformed or non-GitHub URLs are handled, or that many of the schema's nine parameters are discard-only. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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. It communicates the essential behavior efficiently and is appropriately concise for a simple parsing utility.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the one-sentence description is insufficient for fully guided invocation. It does not state the return format, which parameter is required in practice despite all parameters being optional in the schema, or what happens when the supplied value is not a valid GitHub URL.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the key meaning that the URL should be a GitHub URL and that owner/repo are the extracted values, but it does not clarify how the other eight accepted parameters relate to this tool or which parameter is the actual input for invocation.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinct enough from siblings like figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 phrasing implies the tool should be used when an agent has a GitHub URL and needs to extract owner and repository names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, what inputs are prerequisites, or how it differs from alternatives like normalize-url or web-fetch.

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 that the count is 'current' (live/fetched at call time) and that titles are discarded, which is useful. However, it does not state the output format, whether the operation is read-only, or any network/side-effect implications. It is not misleading, but it is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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 'Titles discarded' adds an important scoping detail without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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

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

The tool is simple, but there is no output schema and no annotation support. The description states what the tool does but not the return type or format, and it does not clarify invocation semantics given the nine unrelated optional parameters. It is adequate for a trivial call, but leaves some contextual gaps that an agent would have to infer.

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 schema describes all nine parameters and notes that most are discarded after checks, which aligns with the tool's count-only behavior. However, the tool description itself does not explain which parameters, if any, are relevant, or that all parameters are optional and unnecessary for the core HN count operation. The large optional schema could confuse an agent without additional guidance.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' It also clarifies output scope with 'Titles discarded,' which distinguishes it from tools that would return story details or titles. The function is unambiguous and differentiates itself from sibling tools by its direct statement of purpose.

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

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

The description clearly indicates when to use the tool: when the count of current Hacker News front-page stories is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not conditions, but 'Titles discarded' implies the tool is not appropriate if titles are required. This is clear context without explicit 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool returns data, performs validation, makes a network request, or has side effects. The agent is left with no information about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but it is an under-specified noun phrase rather than an actionable tool description. It lacks a verb, behavioral detail, and any structure that would help an agent understand invocation semantics. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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

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

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the tool needs a much richer description. The current text says nothing about return values, how parameters are used, what 'clock calls' refers to, or what the agent should expect. The description is inadequate for correct tool selection and invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter information. However, the description and schema are disconnected: none of the nine optional parameters mention timezone or IANA zones, and the description does not explain how any parameter relates to the stated purpose. The schema descriptions are individually clear but contextually unhelpful.

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 resource ('Common IANA timezone names') and an intended use ('for clock calls'), so an agent can roughly infer the tool's domain. However, it lacks a verb or action, so it is unclear whether the tool returns a list, validates a name, or resolves aliases. It only weakly distinguishes itself from siblings like timezone and utc-time.

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

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

The phrase 'for clock calls' implies when the tool might be relevant, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as timezone or utc-time. No exclusions or contrasting conditions are given, so the usage context is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the operation fetches a public resource and returns only group counts, implying a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not mention error behavior, redirects, rate limits, or how the broad set of input parameters 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The word 'only' adds meaningful output scoping without extra length.

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 nine optional parameters, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain which parameter to provide, what the returned group counts look like, or what happens when multiple parameters are supplied. This is a substantial 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; notably, it does not clarify whether 'host' or 'url' identifies the robots.txt target. Some schema fields like 'city', 'json', and 'zone' appear unrelated to robots.txt, but the schema documents them 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a public robots.txt'), and a clear output constraint ('return group counts only'), so an agent can understand the core function and distinguish it from generic web-fetch tools. It does not name a sibling or address why the schema contains many unrelated parameters, so it falls short of a perfect clarity 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web-fetch, fetch-status, or normalize-url. The description implies a use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or which sibling tools should be preferred for other tasks.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the key is discarded, but it does not explain what a valid Jira key shape is, what result is returned, or how invalid keys are handled.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and 'Key discarded' adds a meaningful side-effect note without extra fluff.

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 a large generic schema, no annotations, no output schema, and a critical missing key parameter, the description is far from complete. The agent cannot determine which parameter to use or what the tool returns, making the definition unusable in practice.

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

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

The schema contains nine parameters but none of them is a Jira issue key or key-like input. The description refers to a 'key' that does not exist in the schema, and additionalProperties is false, so the agent cannot pass an undocumented key parameter. This is a critical mapping failure.

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 the shape of a Jira issue key, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling shape-checking tools, but the Jira qualifier makes the purpose distinct enough.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github-repo-shape or domain-shape. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name.

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 disclosing behavior. It does disclose that only the HTTP status is returned and the body is discarded, which is a useful behavioral fact. However, it does not mention network method, redirect or error behavior, or that many input parameters appear to be ignored, leaving notable gaps for a network-calling tool.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and the second adds a meaningful behavioral 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?

With nine optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many closely related sibling tools, this terse description is insufficient for unambiguous invocation. It never identifies the parameter to use by name, describes the return format, or explains how lib-docs-hint differs from fetch-status or browser-url-ok. Too much is left to inference.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight semantic hint that the relevant input is a public library docs URL and the output is a status check. Yet it does not clarify which of the nine parameters is actually used, and the schema's own 'url' description says 'normalize or cite', which does not align cleanly with this tool's stated purpose.

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

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

The description names a concrete operation: obtain the HTTP status for a public library docs URL, with the response body discarded. This is a specific verb+resource statement and gives an agent a reasonable idea of what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate this tool from URL-checking siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

The phrase 'Body discarded' implies this tool is for status-only checks and should not be used when the response body is needed. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as web-fetch or fetch-status, nor does it list any exclusions. Usage context is therefore implied rather than clearly specified.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Values discarded' is a useful disclosure, and several parameter descriptions reinforce a discard-and-forget behavior. However, the description does not explain whether keys are counted recursively, whether malformed JSON produces an error or empty result, or whether any state is changed.

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, fully front-loaded with the primary verb and object. It contains no filler and every word contributes a distinct point: the operation and the value-handling behavior.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only one line of functional information. It fails to state the return format, whether the count is top-level or nested, which parameter supplies the JSON, or how invalid inputs are handled. This leaves significant gaps 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter details in the description. The description adds the general concept of counting keys and discarding values, but it does not clarify which of the many string parameters is the JSON object to count. This ambiguity limits the description's added value.

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

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

The description states a clear action and resource: 'Count keys in a JSON object.' It also adds the meaningful distinction that values are discarded, which clarifies the tool is about key counting rather than parsing or validation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like validate-json or hn-front-count.

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 usage when a JSON key count is needed and values are irrelevant, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, so an agent must infer that this is not the tool for validation or fetching.

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 a meaningful behavioral trait: query strings and fragments are dropped from the output. However, with no annotations and a schema containing nine unrelated optional parameters, the description does not clarify how those parameters are treated or what happens with invalid URLs.

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 output behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy.

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 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain which parameter is the primary URL input, why the other parameters exist, or what the exact output format looks like, making correct invocation ambiguous.

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 little beyond that, aside from mentioning that query and fragment are dropped, which is not clearly mapped to the schema's 'query' property since that property is described as search text.

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 origin, host, and path for a URL. It adds useful precision by saying query and fragment are dropped, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling URL-related tools such as figma-url-shape or browser-url-ok.

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

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

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the right choice for URL normalization.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that no browser is launched, which is useful and non-obvious from the name. However, it does not explain what 'can be opened' means operationally (e.g., HTTP status, timeout, network behavior) or reveal that most 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the key behavioral caveat follows immediately. This is appropriately scoped for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 clear purpose sentence, the tool exposes seven heterogeneous parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) and has no output schema or annotations. The description does not clarify which parameter should be passed for the URL check, what the return value looks like, or why city and json are accepted. An agent cannot confidently determine invocation requirements from this definition 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 description itself adds no parameter information, but the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter, many explicitly noting they are 'discarded' after the check. With schema coverage effectively high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser-url-ok by explicitly stating 'No browser is launched,' which clarifies that this is a lightweight URL reachability check rather than a full browser operation.

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 statement 'No browser is launched' implies this tool is appropriate when a simple URL-open check is needed without browser rendering, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this instead of browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch. Usage context is implied rather than directly instructed.

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 return behavior. It states 'Query discarded,' which signals non-persistence, but it does not say what the tool returns, whether it reads external resources, or what happens when multiple or zero fields are provided. This is too thin for a 9-parameter tool with no output schema.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the key behavior is front-loaded. Conciseness is appropriate even though completeness is lacking.

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

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

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. An agent cannot tell which parameter(s) to fill, what value comes back, or why the extra fields exist.

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 at 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the search query; the schema's per-field descriptions carry the semantics.

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

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

The description names a specific action and object: count characters in a search query, and notes that the query is discarded. This is unambiguous at a surface level, but it does not position the tool against similar sibling length/shape tools, and the nine-parameter schema is not reconciled with the singular 'search query' framing.

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

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

No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are given. The only usage signal is the verb itself ('count characters'), from which an agent can infer it should be used when a query length is needed, but there is no context about prerequisites, supported input types, or which of the many optional fields to pass.

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 explaining side effects, return behavior, and operational details, but it only says 'catalog.' It does not disclose whether the tool performs network requests, reads files, or returns a static list, nor does it explain why the schema includes nine unrelated-looking parameters. The schema's 'discarded after...' notes hint at transient behavior, but the description itself does not clarify this.

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 contains no filler, so it is concise. However, the brevity results in under-specification: essential usage and behavior details are absent. It is not as minimal as a bare tautology, but it sacrifices completeness for compactness.

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 exposes nine optional parameters, has no output schema, and has no annotations, so the description needs to explain how inputs are used and what the caller receives. It does neither. An agent can guess the general purpose but cannot confidently determine which parameters are relevant to the catalog or what the return value will look 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all nine parameters, so the schema already provides clear meaning for each field. The tool description adds no parameter-level insight and does not connect the parameters to the catalog behavior. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema descriptions are individually adequate, even if they seem mismatched with the tool's stated purpose.

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

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

The description identifies the tool as a short catalog of common HTTP status codes, naming the specific resource and content type. It goes beyond the bare tool name and is reasonably distinct from sibling network tools like fetch-status, though it lacks an explicit action verb.

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, web-fetch, or browser-url-ok. The description does not state whether it is for status-code lookups, URL status checks, or general debugging. An agent must infer the intended context solely from the name.

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 that the prompt is discarded, which is a meaningful behavioral trait, and implies a read-only template operation. However, it does not explicitly discuss side effects, determinism, or what happens with the provided parameters.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short statements, with the core purpose front-loaded. 'Prompt discarded' earns its place by clarifying that input is ignored.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but viable: it states the output and that the prompt is ignored. It leaves gap around what the three-step template actually contains and how the many parameters relate to the call.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 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 object: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It clearly indicates what the tool produces, though it does not position it against the 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Prompt discarded' is a behavioral note, not usage context, and no conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons 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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only states the core behavior. It does not mention that only the 'zone' parameter is relevant, that the other eight schema fields appear unrelated to timezone lookup, or what happens on an invalid zone. The operation is clearly a read-only time lookup, but richer behavioral context is missing.

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

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

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler and front-loads the core purpose. It loses one point because it omits contextual guidance that would make selection and invocation more robust.

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

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

The description is minimally viable for a simple tool: an agent can infer that it should pass the zone parameter. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and a confusing nine-parameter schema full of apparently unrelated fields, the description does not fully explain return format, error behavior, or which parameters are actually used.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond the schema: 'named IANA timezone' essentially repeats what the 'zone' parameter description already says. It also does not clarify why nine unrelated parameters like url, json, and path exist on a timezone 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 the tool's result: current time for a named IANA timezone. The phrase 'IANA timezone' also helps distinguish it from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones. It is not a full 5 because it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement such as 'Returns the current time...'.

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

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

The description implies this tool is for zone-specific time lookups, especially given the sibling utc-time exists. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. The usage context is inferable but not 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the output but completely omits the presence and role of the eight input parameters, several of which are described in the schema as being discarded after shape checks. This creates a significant gap between the stated purpose and the actual tool mechanics.

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 four words, which is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. It lacks essential context about the input schema and tool behavior, making it too sparse to support correct invocation.

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 complex input schema with eight parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between the UTC timestamp and the shape-check parameters like ref, url, or json, leaving an agent unable to determine correct usage. The mismatch between the description and schema demands much more explanatory content.

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

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

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, and the schema descriptions themselves are unusual and do not connect to the stated UTC timestamp purpose, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema text that appears orthogonal to the tool's name.

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 output, 'Current UTC timestamp', which indicates the tool returns the current time. However, it lacks a verb and does not explain why the input schema contains many unrelated parameters like URL, city, and JSON. It also does not differentiate this tool from sibling time-related tools such as timezone or iana-zones.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. With siblings like timezone and iana-zones, an agent has no routing cues from the description 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the body is discarded, implying a read-only, no-retention check, but it does not describe return values, behavior on invalid JSON, side effects, or authorization requirements.

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 carry the core purpose and an important discard behavior with no filler. The validity check is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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

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

For a simple validator, the description plus the well-described schema are mostly adequate: an agent can identify the `json` parameter and know the input is discarded. Still, with no output schema or annotations, return semantics and failure behavior are left unspecified, so it is only minimally complete.

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

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

The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the input schema describes every parameter, including `json` as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check.' With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; a direct mapping from 'body' to the `json` parameter would have improved it 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 concrete action, 'Check whether a body is valid JSON,' with a clear resource and criterion, so it is not a tautology and is distinct from sibling shape/status checkers. However, 'body' is not explicitly tied to the `json` parameter and no sibling is named, so it stops just 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 use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisite or exclusion conditions are given. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and the sibling tool list rather than from explicit instructions.

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 only says current temperature is provided via Open-Meteo; it does not disclose whether the tool makes an external network call, what units are returned, how errors are handled, or that most inputs 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, with no filler words. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with nine parameters, so it does not fully earn 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and an input schema with many seemingly irrelevant parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not tell an agent which parameter to supply, what the response looks like, or what to expect from the large set of optional 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 adds minimal parameter context by mentioning 'city', but it does not clarify which of the nine schema properties are relevant, whether city is required, or what format is expected.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides current temperature for a city and names the data source (Open-Meteo). It is specific enough to distinguish weather-hint from siblings like geo-hint or timezone, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets'.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of required inputs, and no exclusions. The description simply states the function without explaining that only 'city' matters or that the other eight schema parameters are effectively ignored.

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 meaningfully discloses that the body is discarded and the URL is expected to be public, but it does not mention redirects, error behavior, rate limits, or confirm the HTTP method used.

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, front-loading the core behavior and then stating the key limitation. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 core behavior is clear for a simple status/content-type check, but the return format is unspecified and the heterogeneous eight-parameter schema leaves ambiguity about which inputs are required or relevant. Without an output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete for reliable invocation.

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

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

The schema already provides descriptions for all eight parameters, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The description adds the body-discard behavior but does not clarify which parameters are actually relevant to the URL fetch or reconcile the url schema text ('normalize or cite') with the status/content-type 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 clearly states that the tool reports HTTP status and content type for a public URL, and adds that the body is discarded. It does not use an explicit verb like 'fetch' and does not differentiate itself from siblings such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 'HTTP status and content type for a public URL' implies the intended use case, and 'Body discarded' is a useful when-not signal that the response body is not available. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when to choose this tool over similar sibling 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add one behavioral detail ('Title discarded after the call'), but it omits the return format, side effects, failure behavior, and why several exposed parameters are unrelated to the stated purpose. This is insufficient for a check tool with no safety 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 compact and front-loaded, stating the purpose before the discard note. Both sentences are short, though the second sentence partially duplicates information already scattered across the schema's repeated 'discarded' notes.

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 critically incomplete for a title-existence check: it omits the title parameter mapping, return semantics, and any indication of what 'exists' means or what happens on failures. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool from the provided definition.

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

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

The description does not map 'Wikipedia title' to any input schema property. The seven parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) are all unrelated to a title, and no title parameter exists. The schema descriptions are present but do not compensate, because an agent cannot know which argument carries the title or how to invoke the 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 clear action and resource: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This distinguishes the tool from the sibling shape/URL validators. However, the purpose is undermined by the input schema, which exposes no 'title' parameter, so a precise agent-facing purpose is less clear than it initially appears.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus siblings like validate-json, fetch-status, or other *-ok validators. The context is only implied: use it to verify a Wikipedia title. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing instructions.

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