Language da

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

The description and parameter comments disclose that some inputs are discarded after checks, but there is no explanation of side effects, external calls, costs, or other behavioral implications. No annotations are provided to fill this 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 short and not padded, but it is dense and ambiguous. The structure is acceptable, yet the phrasing sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of invocation context or expected result, the tool is severely under-specified for an agent to use reliably.

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

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

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but they are generic or cryptic (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'city name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call'). They do not explain how parameters relate to the tool's main 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?

Description states a broad purpose ('find a public pay-per-call tool gateway') but the meaning is vague and the parameter list does not clearly map to how the tool would accomplish this. 'Returns connection methods' adds only marginal clarity.

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 any of the many sibling tools. There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or selection criteria.

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 only discloses that no browser is launched, which is useful but insufficient. It does not explain what 'can be opened' means (e.g., HTTP status, DNS resolution), what the return value looks like, or any side effects. For a check tool, this is a significant 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 exceptionally concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core action and the key limitation (no browser launch). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain what 'can be opened' means, what output to expect, or how to interpret the result. It also does not address the role of the numerous parameters, leaving an agent guessing about appropriate usage. A more complete description would clarify the tool's scope and expected behavior.

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 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, but the baseline of 3 applies given the high schema coverage. However, the diverse set of parameters (city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) seems unrelated to the stated purpose of checking a URL, and the description does not clarify how they relate, which slightly reduces the 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 verb ('Check') and resource ('whether a URL can be opened'), and adds a key qualifier that no browser is launched. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or web-fetch, which also deal with URLs. The purpose is clear but not unique.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context. It does not mention when not to use it or how it differs from similar URL-related 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?

The phrase 'Expression discarded' and repeated 'discarded after...' notes imply no persistence, but with no annotations this transparency is minimal and does not address side effects, permissions, or output 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 very short and front-loads the primary purpose, but the second sentence 'Expression discarded' is cryptic and could be more precise.

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

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

The tool has nine parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the evaluation returns, how results are formatted, or which parameter should contain the expression, leaving critical context absent.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, every parameter description is unrelated to arithmetic evaluation; the descriptions ('Git ref name; discarded...', 'HTTPS URL to normalize...', etc.) actively confuse rather than clarify how to supply the arithmetic 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 clear arithmetic evaluation purpose ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but the input schema contains no expression parameter and instead lists unrelated fields like ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query, making the intended invocation unclear.

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

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

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as validate-json or fetch-status; the only usage signal is the generic arithmetic phrase, which is insufficient.

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 notes that page content is not stored, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explain that many input parameters are discarded or how the tool handles them, leaving significant behavior undisclosed.

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

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

The description is one sentence and avoids unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity with nine parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the roles of the other parameters or what the return value looks like beyond the three fields mentioned, so it is incomplete for reliable 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?

The input schema lists nine parameters, but the description only mentions URL. The parameter descriptions are minimal and many say 'discarded' without explaining the purpose of the check, leaving the semantics unclear for an agent.

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 returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, so it lacks sibling 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or normalize-url. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full weight for transparency. It only states 'No identifiers are retained' and discards various inputs after checks, but it never clarifies whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or what 'classified' entails. The behavior is not well disclosed.

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

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

The description is very concise, with no fluff, and the structure is simple. However, conciseness comes at the expense of informativeness; the text is too sparse to be useful. It meets the minimum for being short but lacks substance.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters combine, what the classification output looks like, or how to interpret results. An agent would not have enough context to use this tool effectively.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema, but they are minimal and often ambiguous (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). They hint at validation but don't explain how each parameter influences the classification. The coverage is 100%, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the descriptions add only limited meaning.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what classification means, what output is produced, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'fetch-status' or 'validate-json'. It does not clearly state the tool's 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description lacks any mention of appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to other 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?

The description explicitly states what the tool does not do ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which suggests it avoids external data fetching. However, it does not explicitly mention whether it has side effects, network calls, or side effects, though the nature of 'splitting' implies a pure computation. That implicit understanding supports a good but not perfect score.

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

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

The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and a key constraint. It is concise without unnecessary words, achieving high clarity in a compact form.

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 lacks essential information about the output format (e.g., how labels are returned), error handling, and the role of the numerous optional parameters that do not align with the stated hostname-splitting purpose. Without an output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's expected behavior.

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 all 9 parameters have descriptions (100% coverage), several descriptions are inconsistent with the stated purpose of splitting hostnames. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'json' as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check,' which seem unrelated to hostname labels. The parameter descriptions do not clarify how these relate to the core function, causing confusion rather than adding meaningful context.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Split a hostname into labels,' and adds a specific qualifier, 'without WHOIS or ownership data,' which distinguishes it from potential alternatives and sets expectations. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites. It only states what the tool does, leaving the user to infer use cases. No alternative tools are referenced.

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 transparency burden. It only implies a network request via 'HEAD' and states that status is returned, but it does not disclose side effects, access patterns, or the fact that most schema parameters are 'discarded' or checked without disk access.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It loses a point because it omits any mention of the tool's actual multi-parameter behavior, making it too terse relative to the schema 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?

Given the nine-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how the different parameters relate, what the return value looks like, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning; however, the schema descriptions do provide individual semantics for each parameter, even if some are inconsistent with the tool's stated URL-focused purpose.

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

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

The description states a clear action for one input ('HEAD a public URL and return status only'), but the schema exposes nine unrelated optional parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query). This makes the actual scope of the tool ambiguous and misrepresents its broader multi-input nature.

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 any sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or validate-json, nor does it explain which parameter should be supplied for which use case.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions that the path is discarded, leaving unspecified what the tool does with the URL, what it returns, or whether it makes network calls. This is minimal coverage for a tool with 9 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 only one sentence, which is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It is not 'conciseness' but rather a lack of essential information, so it scores low on appropriate sizing.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose across parameters, return behavior, or side effects, leaving many ambiguities for the agent.

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 does not add parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already documents each parameter (e.g., 'url' is 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), so the agent has sufficient information.

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 verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), and adds a behavioral detail ('Path discarded'). This distinguishes it from sibling URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, though it does not explain what 'parse' yields (e.g., validation, component extraction).

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, domain-shape, or github-repo-shape. The description is a single sentence with no context about intended scenarios or exclusions.

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

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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'No disk access,' which is useful but minimal. There is no mention of return behavior, error conditions, or what 'safe' means in terms of side effects or security guarantees.

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 at two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and safety property efficiently.

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 confusing and broad schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the unrelated optional parameters relate to the path check, what the tool returns, or whether multiple params are allowed. The high optional-parameter count without guidance leaves the tool's expected usage 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, most parameter descriptions are unrelated to the stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL', 'City name'). The tool description does not clarify or reconcile these mismatched parameters, so it fails to add meaningful semantic guidance 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 states a specific action ('Check whether a path looks safe') and a resource ('path'), but it does little to distinguish this from sibling validators like browser-url-ok or normalize-url. The schema's many unrelated parameters further muddy the intended 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it indicate which of the nine optional parameters should be supplied. A user would not know whether to call this with only 'path' or with other fields.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'via Open-Meteo,' implying an external network call, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or how parameters are handled. The schema descriptions mention discarding inputs, but that is not reflected in the tool description.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and not front-loaded with the most relevant information (e.g., how to specify the place). It is not merely concise; it is incomplete, so it does not earn a high score for structure.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain which parameter is essential, what the output format is, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably determine how to call this tool correctly without further investigation.

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 every parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not indicate which parameter is the 'place' or how the parameters relate to the geocoding function. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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

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

The description states a specific function: returning latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. It is clear about the resource and outcome, but it does not mention how the place is specified or differentiate from siblings like weather-hint, which may also rely on a city name.

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. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema 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, and the tool-level description only says 'parse'. It does not disclose that most of the nine schema parameters appear unrelated or discarded, nor does it explain validation behavior or side effects, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or redundant 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?

With nine optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the one-line description does not explain how to invoke the tool, what it returns, or what happens when the expected GitHub URL is missing or invalid.

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 every parameter has a schema description, only 'url' is plausibly relevant to the stated purpose, and its description says 'normalize or cite' rather than 'GitHub repo to parse'. The other parameters are unrelated or explicitly discarded, and none are required, making it unclear which input is actually needed.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Parse') and a clear target resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling shape/URL 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 by the description — when owner and repo are needed from a GitHub URL — but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok, nor how to handle non-GitHub URLs.

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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Titles discarded,' which is a minor output note, and does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, what network access it requires, or how it handles the parameters. The schema descriptions hint at discarding after checks, but the description itself adds little beyond that.

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 at two short sentences, front-loading the core action and the note about titles. It earns a high score for brevity and structure, though it sacrifices 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely lacking. It doesn't explain how to invoke the tool, which parameters matter, what the return value looks like, or any edge cases. An agent would have difficulty using it correctly without more information.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information and fails to explain why these parameters exist for counting HN stories, creating confusion. Baseline 3 applies because the schema covers semantics, but the description doesn't compensate for the disconnect.

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: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories,' with a note that titles are discarded. This distinguishes it from generic fetch tools, but the input schema lists 9 unrelated parameters that muddle the purpose and don't clarify how they relate to the counting function.

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 sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status. It doesn't mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for use. The only implied usage is for counting HN stories, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does mention that several inputs are 'discarded' and that 'path' involves 'no disk access', which gives partial transparency about side effects. However, the overall behavior of the tool remains unclear.

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 itself is very short and free of fluff, which is concise. However, it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces structural 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?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not provide enough context to understand the tool's inputs, outputs, or behavior. The purpose is too vague to support correct usage.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. Some descriptions clarify that inputs are discarded or used for validation, but many parameters appear unrelated to the stated purpose of timezone names, leaving their role ambiguous.

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

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

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase with no verb, so it does not clearly state what the tool does (list, fetch, validate, or resolve timezone names). It also does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'timezone' or '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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'timezone', 'utc-time', or other sibling tools. The description provides no context for selecting this tool over 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 full burden, but it only says 'public' and 'group counts only'; it does not disclose behavior on missing robots.txt, redirects, network errors, or 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 one concise sentence with no filler, but the brevity omits essential information about parameters and 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?

Without an output schema or annotations, and with a mismatched parameter list, the description is incomplete for an agent to know how to invoke the tool correctly or interpret results.

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

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

The schema parameter descriptions are present but unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., city for weather, json to validate, git ref for shape checks), and no parameter clearly maps to the robots.txt URL, so the description adds no meaningful 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 clearly states the action (fetch a public robots.txt) and the result (return group counts only), but it does not connect that purpose to any of the nine input parameters, leaving a confusing gap between intent and schema.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like web-fetch, fetch-status, or normalize-url, and it does not mention limitation or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral detail is 'Key discarded,' which is ambiguous because no parameter is identified as 'key.' The description does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, how errors are handled, or what side effects (if any) occur.

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

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

The description is extremely short—two sentences, no wasted words—so it is concise. However, the brevity omits critical information and the structure does not clarify the tool's relationship to its schema. It is efficient but under-specified.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a description that mentions an entity absent from the schema, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would be unable to determine when to use this tool or how to invoke it correctly without guessing which parameter corresponds to a 'Jira key.'

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 tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and actively introduces a concept ('Jira issue key') that does not appear in any property description. The description therefore fails to help the agent map the stated purpose to the actual parameters, and the schema itself suggests a generic multi-purpose shape checker rather than a Jira-specific tool.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), but it fails to connect this to the input schema, which lists 9 unrelated parameters such as URL, city, feed, host, JSON, path, zone, and query—none of which mention a Jira key. This makes the actual purpose ambiguous and does not effectively differentiate it from sibling shape-checking tools like 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 alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to sibling tools. The description's mismatch with the schema further leaves the agent without any direction on which parameter to supply or what kind of input is expected.

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 must disclose side effects, state changes, or security implications, but it does not. The parameter descriptions hint that some inputs are 'discarded' and there is 'no disk access,' but the overall behavior and potential side effects of the tool are not described.

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 sacrifices meaning for brevity and is not a complete sentence. The input schema is a long flat list of seemingly unrelated fields with no organizing explanation, making the overall structure hard to interpret.

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 and no output schema or annotations, the context is severely incomplete. An agent cannot know what arguments to provide, what the tool returns, or how the parameters relate to each other.

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?

Each of the 9 parameters has a description, but these descriptions are unrelated to the stated language-tag purpose and seem arbitrary (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint'). They do not explain how any parameter contributes to the tool's function, so the 100% coverage is superficial.

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 'ISO 639 language tag da.' is a noun phrase with no verb or action, so it does not state what the tool does, returns, or accepts. It is unclear whether this tool validates, generates, or looks up a language tag, and the name alone does not resolve the ambiguity.

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 many sibling tools. The description does not mention any condition, alternative, or context that would help an agent select 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 the body is discarded and path access is absent, but it does not state the return format, failure behavior, network side effects, or whether any parameter actually triggers a request. This leaves important behavioral expectations 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, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. The brevity is a positive, though it 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?

With nine optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no usage context, this description is fundamentally incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to provide, what the response will look like, or why this tool exists alongside similar 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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, many are self-defeating ('discarded after the shape check', 'discarded after the length check') and do not explain how they contribute to the tool's stated purpose. The main description does not map parameters to behavior, so the agent cannot reliably decide which fields are relevant.

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 says 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL' but does not clarify what 'lib-docs-hint' actually returns or how it relates to the nine unrelated optional parameters. It is not clearly distinguished 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 provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any conditions or exclusions given. The description implies a narrow docs-URL use case, but the broad parameter list makes the intended usage unclear.

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 and only the phrase 'Values discarded', the description does not disclose return format, errors, side effects, or any observable behavior beyond counting.

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 fluff, though it is so terse that it leaves important operational details unstated.

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 there is no output schema or required parameter, the description should explain what input shape is expected and what the tool returns; it does neither, making the tool effectively unusable from the description alone.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions are contradictory to the stated purpose—most are described as 'discarded' or tied to unrelated checks, so they do not clarify how to provide the JSON object whose keys are counted.

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 verb and object ('Count keys in a JSON object'), but the input schema contains nine unrelated optional string parameters, so it is unclear what actual input the tool consumes.

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 this tool versus alternatives like validate-json or calc-eval, and the description does not mention any selection criteria.

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 should disclose side effects or non-effects, but it only states the output transformation. It does not explicitly state that no network request is made, no data is modified, or what errors may occur.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main behavior and output. It is appropriately brief.

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 lacks essential context for a tool with such a bloated and ambiguous schema: it does not explain how the parameters relate to the operation, what the output format is, or how errors are handled. The lack of an output schema makes this incompleteness more significant.

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 includes nine optional parameters with descriptions that are largely irrelevant to URL normalization (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'IANA timezone name'). The conflicting descriptions do not clarify which parameters are actually used and undermine the tool's reliability.

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 clearly states the tool's function: return origin, host, and path for a URL and drop query/fragment. It names the resource and the transformation, making the core purpose obvious.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok or web-fetch. There is no mention of suitable use cases or when not to use 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only reveals that no browser is launched. It does not say whether a network request is made, whether the check is purely syntactic, what side effects occur, or what the result looks like. The ambiguous phrase 'can be opened' leaves the actual behavior unclear.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler; it is front-loaded with the core purpose and then a clarifying behavioral constraint. It earns conciseness points, though the brevity leaves significant contextual gaps.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the role of non-URL parameters, define what 'can be opened' means operationally, describe return values, or clarify how this tool relates to its many siblings. The schema helps but cannot compensate for the missing behavioral and usage 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%, and each parameter already has a specific description (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 URL can be opened') and adds a distinguishing behavior ('No browser is launched'), which helps differentiate it from browser-url-ok. However, it only covers URL checking while the schema exposes eight other unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone, query, etc.), so the stated scope is incomplete and somewhat misleading.

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 signal is the negative constraint 'No browser is launched,' which implies a lightweight check but does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings like web-fetch, fetch-status, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. There is no guidance on which of the nine optional parameters to supply or what kind of inputs are 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 transparency burden, but it only discloses that the query is discarded after the length check. It does not explain whether the unrelated schema parameters (url, city, path, etc.) affect behavior or what side effects, if any, occur.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundant wording. The behavioral note 'Query discarded' is compact, though it could arguably be separated into a behavioral section if more structure were used.

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 simple core purpose, the description omits helpful context such as whether the count includes whitespace or Unicode characters, and it does not clarify why eight unrelated parameters are present. Without an output schema, the exact return value is also left implicit, making the tool incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, most parameter descriptions are semantically disconnected from the stated purpose of counting characters in a search query. The extra parameters (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') imply unrelated functionality and could confuse an agent; only the query parameter's description aligns with the tool 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and object: 'Count characters in a search query.' It does not, however, explicitly contrast it with sibling count tools such as hn-front-count or memory-key-count, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 this tool instead of sibling tools or about what kinds of queries it is intended for. The only behavioral note, 'Query discarded,' hints that it is side-effect free but does not constitute 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses no return format, side effects, error behavior, or data access; the schema's 'discarded after...' notes are the only behavioral hints and are not reflected in the tool description.

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

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

The description is a single terse sentence with no filler and front-loads the core subject. However, its brevity omits necessary operational context, even though it is efficient in wording.

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 description leaves too much unknown: what the tool returns, which parameters are relevant, and what happens if multiple are supplied. It is not complete enough to use reliably.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are disconnected from the stated catalog purpose and do not explain how any parameter affects the result. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the 'discarded after' language confusingly suggests validation behavior rather than catalog lookup.

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 HTTP status codes') but lacks a verb or clear operation; it is unclear whether the tool lists codes, looks one up, or validates something. The nine unrelated optional inputs (URL, city, JSON, etc.) are not connected to the catalog purpose, so the intended action remains 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as fetch-status, validate-json, browser-url-ok, or timezone. It does not state its use case, nor does it exclude any alternative.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for side-effect disclosure. It implies that some inputs are discarded, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is pure/read-only, what happens to all parameters, or whether any external resources are touched.

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

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

The text is short and front-loaded with the primary verb, but the second sentence is a fragment and syntactically unrelated to the schema (there is no 'prompt' parameter), making it less effective than it could 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?

Given the tool's apparent simplicity, the description still omits essential context: what the three-step template looks like, whether the returned template is static or depends on inputs, and what 'Prompt discarded' actually means 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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The top-level description adds no additional parameter detail, but the schema's own 'discarded' notes give partial meaning; however, the mix of unrelated params and inconsistent discard notes keeps this at the baseline.

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

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

The description names a concrete deliverable ('a three-step thinking template') but does not define what that template contains or when it applies. The added phrase 'Prompt discarded' introduces ambiguity about the tool's role, and no sibling differentiation is provided.

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 any of the many sibling tools, no conditions, examples, or exclusions. The description only states the output and that a 'prompt' is discarded.

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 transparently frames this as a read-only lookup of current time, implying no side effects. It does not discuss error behavior or ignored parameters, but for a simple time lookup this is adequate.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose.

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 complete enough for a simple tool with no output schema, as it names the requested input and result. It could be more explicit about return format, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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

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

The schema already provides full coverage: the relevant 'zone' parameter is documented as 'IANA timezone name' and all other parameters carry 'discarded' descriptions. The tool description adds little semantic information beyond restating that the zone is an IANA timezone.

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

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

The description is a clear, specific statement of function: it returns the current time for a user-supplied IANA timezone. This distinguishes it from siblings like utc-time or iana-zones by the explicit IANA naming requirement.

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 'named IANA timezone' clearly conveys when the tool is appropriate—when a caller needs current local time in a specific IANA zone. It does not explicitly reference sibling alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for 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?

The description does not disclose that all input parameters are ignored or that the tool is stateless. The schema hints at this, but since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose these behaviors.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and directly front-loads the core purpose. However, it is a fragment with no structuring, which slightly reduces the score.

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 9 parameters and the lack of an output schema, the description fails to explain why parameters are accepted or what the return format is. It leaves major gaps and is incomplete for effective 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?

The schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, covering 100% of them. The tool description adds no further semantic value, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool provides the current UTC timestamp, though it lacks a verb. It is unambiguous but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like timezone.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, and no conditions, exclusions, or use cases are 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?

The description explicitly states that the body is discarded, indicating a non-persistent, read-only operation. However, it does not clarify whether the tool has any side effects (e.g., logging) or permissions requirements, and no annotations are provided to fill this gap.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to read.

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 incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It does not specify which parameter represents the JSON input, nor does it explain the expected output (e.g., validation result format). It lacks context about the tool's purpose beyond the literal check.

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

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

Although the schema has full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds no value and instead introduces confusion by using 'body' instead of pointing to the 'json' parameter. It does not clarify which of the nine parameters is relevant for the intended operation.

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

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

The description states a clear verb (check) and resource (JSON validity), but refers to a 'body' that does not correspond to any parameter in the schema. The presence of a 'json' parameter is not indicated, leaving the intended input 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over the many sibling tools (e.g., other validation tools). It does not mention any conditions, contexts, or alternatives.

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

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

There is no disclosure of behavioral traits. The description does not mention side effects, API rate limits, required permissions, or that it makes an external network call to Open-Meteo. It also fails to note that most schema parameters are discarded, which is a significant behavioral aspect.

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, direct sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complex schema with 9 optional parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention that only 'city' matters, that other parameters are accepted but discarded, or what the output looks like. This leaves substantial context missing for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional investigation.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), each providing a name and a fate (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). However, these descriptions do not explain why unrelated parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) exist in a weather tool, and the tool description only references 'city', leaving ambiguity about the relevance of others. The schema coverage meets the baseline, but no extra clarity is added.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: providing the current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It uses a specific verb ('get' implied) and names the resource (city, temperature). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other domains like timezone or URL checks.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention that only the 'city' parameter is relevant or that all other parameters are ignored, nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate over related 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?

The description discloses that the body is discarded, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, with no annotations, it fails to convey whether the operation is read-only, whether it follows redirects, any rate limits, or how the other eight parameters are treated. This leaves the agent without critical safety and side-effect information.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. Conciseness should be paired with completeness; here the brevity omits essential information, so it is not appropriately sized.

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 (9 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the roles of the extra parameters, the response format beyond status and content type, or error behavior. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

The description mentions 'public URL' but does not explicitly link it to the url parameter. The schema has 100% coverage, yet the description adds little value and is inconsistent with the schema: the schema describes other parameters (city, zone, query, etc.) that are discarded after checks, which contradicts the narrow 'HTTP status and content type' focus. An agent could be misled into thinking only url matters.

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: fetch a public URL and return HTTP status and content type. It is not a tautology and gives a clear outcome. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, and it does not indicate which parameter is the URL, so it is not fully unambiguous.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling fetch/status tools, no mention of exclusions, and no context that would help an agent choose it over alternatives. The description is silent on usage 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?

The phrase 'Title discarded after the call' hints that the tool does not persist state, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, permissions, or mutability. With no annotations available, this minimal hint is insufficient.

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 easy to read, which is positive. However, the extreme brevity omits essential information about which parameter is the title and how the check behaves.

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 lacks any explanation of return values, expected input format, or relationship to the nine schema properties. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the parameter descriptions makes the tool impossible to invoke correctly with confidence.

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 every parameter has a description, those descriptions are unrelated to checking Wikipedia titles (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint'). The descriptions do not clarify how any parameter relates to 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 states a clear action and resource: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' However, it does not identify which input parameter holds the title, leaving the core purpose ambiguously mapped to 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as search-query-len or normalize-url. There is no explanation of expected inputs or when it should be preferred.

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