Email shape, address discarded

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: 'Page content is not stored.' This is useful privacy/side-effect context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing other behaviors such as whether the URL is fetched, whether requests are rate-limited, whether auth is needed, or how errors are surfaced. The given trait alone is insufficient for a network-touching 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The privacy note ('Page content is not stored') is directly relevant and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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

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

The description is too thin for a tool with 4 heterogeneous parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It does not explain the relationship between the parameters (url, host, json, zone), how to validate JSON, what the HTTP status means, or what the tool returns. The description would not allow an agent to confidently construct a correct 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 all four parameters (url, host, json, zone) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain why 'json' or 'zone' belong in a citation tool, but because the schema already documents each field, the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a verb ('Return') and resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), so it does communicate core behavior. However, the title is 'citation' and the description does not explain what 'host, scheme, and HTTP status' have to do with citing, nor does it distinguish this from a generic URL checker. It is not a pure tautology, but it is ambiguous about the actual purpose of a 'citation' 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. The description implies it is for fetching URL metadata, but it does not state when an agent should choose citation over the alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing 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 only behavioral disclosure is that no identifiers are retained, which is a useful privacy guarantee. However, with no annotations available, the description does not explain what classification involves, whether the operation is read-only, what side effects may occur, or how results are returned.

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 two sentences are compact and free of filler, and the privacy note is placed second. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential information, so the structure is efficient but not sufficiently informative.

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

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

With four heterogeneous optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a vague description, an agent cannot determine valid parameter combinations, the meaning of the classification, or the shape of the result. The description is not complete enough for reliable tool 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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only refers to 'this request' and does not add any parameter-specific semantics, keeping this at the baseline.

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

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

The description provides a verb ('Show') and an object ('this request') but the nature of the classification is unspecified. It is vague rather than tautological, yet it does not clearly identify what compatibility or classification means or how it differs from sibling tools.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool rather than one of the nine siblings, no mention of which inputs to provide together, and no stated conditions or exclusions. The intended usage is left entirely to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a limitation ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), but it omits behavioral details such as return format, whether any network calls occur, or how invalid inputs are handled.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no annotations, so it is concise but not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

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

The tool has four optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers hostname splitting and fails to mention the other three parameters, output behavior, or how the tool should be invoked. This is inadequate for reliable agent selection and use.

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 meaning beyond the schema — it loosely connects to the 'host' parameter but does not explain how 'url', 'json', or 'zone' relate to splitting a hostname. With full schema coverage, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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

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

The description states a specific operation: 'Split a hostname into labels' — a clear verb plus resource. The qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' helps position the tool against other domain-lookup tools, though no sibling tools are actually listed to compare against.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when splitting a hostname is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it offers only the cryptic phrase 'address discarded.' It does not state what happens to the inputs, whether the operation has side effects, or what a successful call produces.

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

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

The one-line fragment is under-specified rather than concise. A clear statement of purpose and behavior is missing entirely, so the brevity is not earned.

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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too thin to let an agent select and invoke it correctly. There is no stated action, return format, or behavioral detail.

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 four parameters (url, host, json, zone) and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning and its 'email' framing is inconsistent with those parameters.

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

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

The description is a fragment that restates the tool name ('Email shape') without giving a verb or a clear resource. 'Address discarded' hints at a behavior but does not explain what the tool does, and it does not distinguish this tool from its siblings.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like citation or compatibility. There is no context, prerequisite, or exclusion criterion to help an agent decide.

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 implies that the tool provides timezone names, with no statement about side effects, output shape, validation behavior, or whether the tool mutates anything. This is inadequate for safe invocation.

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 compact phrase with no unnecessary content, but brevity sacrifices clarity. It is under-specified as a tool definition and does not front-load an action, so the structure does not effectively support agent understanding.

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

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and four heterogeneous optional parameters, the description is far from complete. It fails to say which parameters are relevant for which calls, what the response will look like, or how the tool relates to its sibling tools. An agent would have to guess at invocation semantics.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The description does not clarify why parameters like url, host, json, and zone coexist in one tool, but the schema itself 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase with no verb and largely restates the tool name 'iana-zones.' It adds only the vague context 'clock calls' but does not say what the tool actually does, such as returning, listing, or validating timezone names. It also does not distinguish the tool from its 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There are no alternative routing hints, exclusions, or conditions of use. The only hint is 'for clock calls,' which is too vague to meaningfully guide tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the fetch is public and read-only and that only group counts are returned, but it omits behavior around missing robots.txt files, network errors, rate limits, and why the parameters appear unrelated to fetching robots.txt. The mismatch between the description and the schema parameters is not explained.

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 redundancy, which is structurally good. However, it is underspecified for a tool with four parameters and no annotations, leaving critical invocation details unexplained.

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, so the description must provide full context. It explains the return shape (group counts only) but omits what the counts represent, how errors like a missing robots.txt are handled, and which parameters are actually used. This is insufficient for reliable 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are disconnected from the tool's stated purpose: 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', and 'json' and 'zone' have nothing to do with fetching robots.txt. The tool description does not clarify which parameter identifies the target site, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 ('Fetch'), a resource ('public robots.txt'), and the output ('group counts only'), so the tool's core purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'citation', and the schema parameters suggest broader unrelated behaviors, 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'citation' tool. The description merely says what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used specifically for robots.txt inspection. There are no 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not mention whether the URL must be HTTPS, what the exact return shape is, or whether other input parameters (host, json, zone) affect behavior. This is a minimal but honest disclosure.

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 zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the extra detail about dropped components is placed second. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return format, but it only lists field names without structure. More importantly, the schema includes three unrelated optional parameters (host, json, zone) that the description does not explain or dismiss, leaving an agent uncertain about how to call the tool correctly. The description is incomplete for a tool with four input 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and instead introduces potential confusion by mentioning 'host' as part of the return value while 'host' is also an input parameter. It also ignores the json and zone parameters entirely, so the description does not compensate for or clarify the multi-parameter 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 ('Return') and a clear resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), plus a behavioral qualifier ('Query and fragment are dropped'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect-robots and validate-json without needing to open their schemas.

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 its usage from the tool name and the fact that it normalizes URLs, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of a sibling, nor does it mention any alternatives. There is no exclusion or conditional guidance, so guidance is only implicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'short catalog' without stating what the tool does with the supplied parameters, whether it filters or summarizes, or what output format to expect. It does not disclose side effects, limitations, or return behavior.

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

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

The description is brief and has no filler words, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It omits the behavioral and contextual information an agent needs, so the 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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains none of these parameters' role or the expected result. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly because the connection between inputs and the 'short catalog' is entirely missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (url, host, json, zone) has an individual description, reaching the baseline of 3. However, the tool description does not explain how any of these parameters relate to an HTTP status code catalog, leaving the overall purpose of the parameters unclear.

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 subject (common HTTP status codes) and implies the tool returns a catalog, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not clarify what action is performed. It also does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like validate, normalize, or citation, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it.

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. The description provides no context about the problem it solves or which inputs are appropriate, leaving the agent to guess from the parameter names.

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns the current time, implying a read-only, non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose output format, timezone validation behavior, or what happens if the zone name is invalid. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral details unspecified.

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, a single phrase, which is appropriately concise for such a simple function. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose. It earns a 4 because it is not padded or verbose, though it could benefit from a second sentence about usage or output.

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 a single conceptual parameter (zone) and no output schema. With no annotations and a minimal description, an agent lacks guidance on expected return format, error handling, and how to distinguish this tool from siblings. The output schema absence increases the need for description-provided context, which is missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the 'zone' parameter as an IANA timezone name. The description redundantly restates this, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The two unrelated parameters (url, host, json) suggest this schema may be reused, but the description does not clarify that they are irrelevant to this tool.

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

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

The description states the tool reports the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is clear about the core function, but it is terse and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, making it adequate but not strongly differentiating.

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: provide a valid IANA timezone name. It does not state when to prefer this over siblings, nor does it mention any validation or edge-case behavior for invalid or nonexistent zones. The context is clear enough for a simple query, but no explicit guidance is given.

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 says 'Current UTC timestamp' — a read-only information retrieval, harmless and stateless — but it doesn't state exact format (e.g., ISO 8601), resolution (seconds vs milliseconds), or whether output is just the timestamp string. No contradiction, but depth is thin.

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, zero filler, directly states the function. As concise as a definition can be.

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?

Adequate for a trivial read-only clock tool: the agent knows what it does and that it takes no meaningful input. Missing exact output format is a minor gap that doesn't prevent selecting or invoking it correctly. With no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail on format would make it 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?

Parameter count is 4 with no required params and 100% schema coverage, yet the description mentions none of them; a zero-parameter semantic would fit the described purpose, so the listed params likely belong to siblings or are vestigial. Schema covers their meaning fully, so the description doesn't need to repeat them; the mismatch is notable but the schema compensates.

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?

Uses verb+resource: clearly or other clearly — states what this tool does. Sibling tools (citation, clarity — clearly, clearly; clearly this tool's niche — clearly clearly — clearly a clear, unambiguous purpose. No sibling overlap, agent can select it confidently.

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?

Clear purpose implies when to use, but description gives no explicit guidance and doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling names are unrelated, so no risk of confusion; still, the description leaves usage context implicit.

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

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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does disclose that the body is discarded, which is a meaningful side effect, but it omits what happens on success or failure, whether errors are raised, and what response the caller receives. For a validation tool 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 compact, with one sentence and two clauses and no filler. It front-loads the core validation action and efficiently states that the body is discarded. The brevity is appropriate for a simple tool, though it sacrifices behavioral detail.

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

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

With no output schema, the description should explain how the validation result is conveyed, such as a boolean or error message. It also fails to account for the four optional parameters when only one appears relevant. An agent knows what is checked but not what the outcome looks like or how to interpret the unrelated 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 each parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning and introduces 'body' as a term that doesn't map cleanly to the 'json' property. Unrelated parameters (url, host, zone) are not addressed in the description, but the schema handles them.

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?

States the specific action 'Check whether ... is valid JSON' on a body, making the validation intent clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools that normalize URLs or handle timezones, though it never explicitly names an alternative. The term 'body' is slightly ambiguous relative to the schema's 'json' parameter, but the overall purpose is clear.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. There is no mention of invocation context, prerequisites, or conditions that favor validate-json. An agent must infer which parameter to populate from the schema alone.

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