HTTP 418 teapot

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

The description adds one meaningful behavioral disclosure: 'Page content is not stored.' With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, but it does not mention network fetching behavior, what happens with json/zone/host inputs, or any error conditions. It is partial transparency rather than complete.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior and a useful privacy note. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must stand alone, but it only covers the URL mode. It fails to explain what the host, json, and zone parameters do, what output is returned for them, or any constraints such as exactly-one-parameter. This is a significant completeness gap for a four-parameter tool.

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

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

Schema descriptions already cover all four parameters at 100%, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces that 'url' is the citation input but adds no meaning for the other parameters and may even mislead an agent into thinking json, zone, or host are irrelevant. There is no contradiction, but also no added value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description names a concrete output ('host, scheme, and HTTP status') for a URL, so the primary behavior is clear. However, the schema exposes three other parameters (host, json, zone) that suggest additional modes not mentioned, so an agent cannot tell what the tool does when those are provided. It also does not differentiate this from sibling tools like normalize-url or http-status-catalog.

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 alternatives such as normalize-url or http-status-catalog. The note 'Page content is not stored' hints at a privacy-safe citation use case, but there is no clear when/when-not, no exclusions, and no mention of which parameter to choose for which scenario.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose one behavioral trait: 'No identifiers are retained,' which is useful privacy context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what processing happens, or whether any data is transmitted, so the safety profile is still incomplete.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loads its main idea, with no redundant rehash of schema fields. But it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete: 'this request' is vague and the classification meaning is not explained, so the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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

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

For a tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It doesn't define the classification dimensions, the expected return value, which parameter(s) constitute a 'request,' or how to distinguish this tool from the listed siblings.

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 already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description adds only a general 'no identifiers retained' promise and gives no param-specific semantics, which keeps it at the baseline for full 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 uses an action verb ('Show') and a resource ('how this request is classified'), but 'request' and 'classified' are ambiguous — it never states what kind of classification or what inputs participate. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone, all of which could plausibly handle one of this tool's parameters.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to choose compatibility over the sibling tools. The schema accepts url, host, json, and zone, each of which has a dedicated sibling (normalize-url, domain-shape, validate-json, timezone), but the description gives no criteria for selecting this tool instead.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior directly. It does say the tool will not fetch WHOIS/ownership data and implies a read-only string transformation. However, it says nothing about behavior for `json`, `zone`, or `url` inputs, nor about what the output looks like beyond 'labels'.

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 focused sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by a boundary clause. There is no filler or repetition.

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

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

The tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description carries most of the burden; it only covers hostname splitting and ignores `url`, `json`, and `zone`. An agent cannot tell whether these are alternative inputs, ignored fields, or separate behaviors, and it does not describe the return format.

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% and each parameter has a clear description (`url`, `host`, `json`, `zone`), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail and does not clarify that `host` is the relevant parameter for the stated label-splitting behavior.

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

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

The description states a specific action and object: 'Split a hostname into labels', and adds a useful boundary ('without WHOIS or ownership data') that distinguishes it from lookup/enrichment tools. It is not a tautology and is easy for an agent to act on, though it does not address the `json`, `zone`, or `url` parameters present in the schema.

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

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

The only usage hint is the exclusion 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which implies this is for label splitting rather than domain intelligence. No alternative tools are named, and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like normalize-url or inspect-robots.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints that the tool is informational ('Meaning of HTTP 418') but does not describe the return format, whether parameters affect behavior, or any side effects. This is a minimal behavioral signal, not a transparent 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?

The description is extremely short with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded in the sense that the single phrase is immediately scannable, though it lacks structural expansion that could support the unrelated-looking parameters.

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

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

The tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a description that does not connect the parameters to the stated purpose. An agent cannot tell whether the parameters are ignored, used for lookup, or required for some hidden behavior. This is not enough context 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 input schema already describes all four parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain why parameters like url, host, json, or zone are relevant to HTTP 418, so it stays 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 identifies the subject as HTTP 418 and implies the tool conveys its meaning, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not state what the agent will receive (e.g., a definition, an explanation, or a status reference). It is not a pure tautology of the name, but it also does not clearly differentiate from the sibling status-catalog 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 is provided about when to use http-418 versus status-catalog or any other sibling. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that make this tool the right choice.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says the tool relates to common IANA timezone names for clock calls; it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it validates, filters, or lists zones, or how the unrelated parameters (url, host, json) factor into behavior.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence with no filler words, making it highly concise. It is less clear than ideal, but it is efficiently structured for a tool that primarily seems to offer a reference list.

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 four optional but seemingly unrelated parameters, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what inputs are meaningful, what the expected return value is, or why url/host/json appear alongside zone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter individually described, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no clarifying semantics: it never explains how a timezone-zone list relates to url, host, or json, leaving the parameter list conceptually disconnected from the 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 a resource ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') and conveys it is a reference list for timezone names, but it lacks a specific verb or action. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', leaving an agent uncertain what calling it actually accomplishes.

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 iana-zones versus sibling tools such as timezone, utc-time, or compatibility. No use cases, exclusions, or alternative recommendations 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 full burden. It does disclose the core behavior: it fetches a public resource and returns only group counts, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explain what happens with the unrelated optional parameters, error behavior, or how missing URLs/hosts 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 one tight sentence, front-loads the primary action, and includes the important scope constraint 'group counts only.' No word is wasted.

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

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

For a tool with zero required parameters, four seemingly unrelated optional parameters, and no output schema or annotations, a single sentence is far from complete. It leaves the agent unsure which parameters to supply and what the result structure looks like beyond 'group counts.'

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%, but the parameter descriptions are markedly inconsistent with a robots.txt tool: 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' and 'IANA timezone name' have no apparent connection to fetching robots.txt. The tool description adds no clarifying parameter guidance, so it fails to resolve this mismatch.

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 an exact verb and resource: 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url 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 alternatives, no mention of preferred parameter combinations, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The sentence only states what it does, not when an agent should choose it.

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

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

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful behavioral context. But there are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it validates URL format, what happens on invalid URLs, or any side effects. The mention of 'json' and 'zone' parameters in the schema further complicates behavior—why are they present if the tool is about 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 extremely concise: two sentences. It front-loads the primary output ('origin, host, and path') and states the key behavior ('Query and fragment are dropped') immediately. No filler or repetition.

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

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

The tool has 4 parameters, none required, with no output schema and no annotations. The description only covers URL-related behavior, leaving the 'json' and 'zone' parameters completely unexplained in context. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool with correct semantics for all parameters. For a multi-purpose or overloaded tool, this is inadequate.

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 has a description in the schema. However, the description itself does not explain how 'host', 'json', and 'zone' relate to the URL normalization task. The tool description only mentions 'url' implicitly, leaving the other parameters' roles unclear. An agent might not know how to combine these parameters or why 'json' and 'zone' are accepted at all. Baseline 3 is warranted because the schema does document each parameter, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 ('Return') and resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools, and the tool's name 'normalize-url' hints at transformation while the description is more about extraction, which could confuse an agent.

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

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

The description implies the tool is for normalizing or citing a URL, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or any context like 'use this instead of X when you need origin/host/path.' With 4 parameters but no required ones, it's unclear when the agent should invoke this tool versus another.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it is a 'short catalog', implying a read-only reference listing, but does not disclose what inputs do, whether anything is returned, or what side effects might exist.

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 free of fluff, but it is under-specified: an 8-word noun phrase rather than a structured instruction. It is concise without being informative enough for a tool with four diverse optional parameters.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters that do not obviously relate to the stated purpose, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what to pass in or what result to expect.

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 already explains each parameter individually (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'), but the tool description adds no connection between these parameters and HTTP status codes, so it does not increase semantic clarity.

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 subject matter: a 'catalog of common HTTP status codes'. However, it has no action verb (lookup, list, validate) and does not explain how the catalog relates to the four diverse parameters (url, host, json, zone), leaving the actual operation ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings 'citation' and 'compatibility'. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must guess when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Current time' conveys a read-only lookup, but the description does not state whether the extra schema parameters are ignored, how invalid timezone names are handled, or what format the returned time takes. The omission of the irrelevant parameters is a 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core behavior immediately and 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 lookup, the core is stated, but the definition omits usage guidance, does not explain why url/host/json appear in the schema, and describes no output format. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent has too little context for confident invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the 'zone' parameter's schema description aligns with 'IANA timezone name'. However, the tool description adds no detail beyond that, and the presence of url/host/json in the schema without clarification could steer an agent toward irrelevant inputs.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource—'Current time' in a 'named IANA timezone'—making the core function clear. It implicitly differentiates from the 'utc-time' sibling (arbitrary zone vs UTC) but does not explicitly name alternatives, and the unrelated schema fields (url/host/json) slightly muddy the purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'utc-time' or 'normalize-url'. It also fails to clarify that only the 'zone' parameter is relevant, leaving an agent to guess which of the four schema properties actually apply.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it only states the output. It does not mention whether parameters are accepted, ignored, or relevant, nor does it disclose any side effects or edge cases, leaving the agent to infer from a misleading 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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, which earns some credit. However, it is under-specified to the point of being more terse than genuinely concise, especially given the mismatched input schema.

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 output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no context about how these relate to the tool or what the response format is. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly; the description is inadequate for the complexity introduced by the schema mismatch.

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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) are clearly unrelated to returning a UTC timestamp and appear to belong to other sibling tools. The description adds no meaning to these parameters and fails to clarify that they likely should not be used, so the schema ends up confusing rather than helping.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly communicates that the tool returns the current UTC time, which is a specific resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or iana-zones, so it lacks explicit 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 sibling tools such as timezone or iana-zones. The description provides no context for selection, and the presence of unrelated parameters further obscures appropriate usage.

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 reveal a non-obvious behavior: 'The body is discarded.' However, it omits what the tool returns on valid vs invalid JSON and whether it throws or returns a boolean, which is important for a validation-only 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Both sentences earn their place: one states the operation, the other states a behavioral consequence.

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 minimal and leaves key invocation details unspecified: what the return value is, which parameter carries the body, and why four optional parameters exist. With no output schema and no annotations, this is not complete enough for reliable agent 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 has its own description, making the baseline 3. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond referring to a 'body,' and it leaves the unrelated url/host/zone parameters ambiguous 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' The discarded-body note adds a distinguishing behavioral detail. Sibling tools are in other domains (URL normalization, timezones, citations), so the purpose is clear even though 'body' is not explicitly tied to the 'json' parameter.

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

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

The intended use is implied: use this when you need to validate JSON text. However, the description gives no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, and it doesn't clarify whether this tool should be preferred over any other path for validation.

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