Language id

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 notes that task text is discarded (a privacy trait) and that it returns connection methods, but it does not mention whether the tool makes network calls, incurs costs (despite 'pay-per-call' in the name), has side effects, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool that appears to be a gateway finder.

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, front-loading the core purpose and including a note about discarded task text. It is concise with no fluff, but the brevity comes at the cost of omitting critical operational details, making it more under-specified than truly concise.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description is insufficient to guide an agent on invocation. It does not explain what 'connection methods' are, how to choose among the parameters, or when to prefer this tool over its many siblings. An agent would be left uncertain about the expected input-output 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each of the 9 parameters is individually described in the schema. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning about how parameters relate to the stated tasks (weather, search, scrape, voice) or which parameters to use for which scenario. It neither maps tasks to parameters nor clarifies the role of discarded fields, so it does not compensate for the ambiguity of having many optional 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Find') and resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway') for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice, and says it returns connection methods. This is understandable and specific enough, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from its many siblings that handle those tasks directly (e.g., weather-hint, normalize-url). The role as an index is implied but not clearly contrasted with alternatives.

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling tools. It lists example tasks but does not explain how to select this tool over alternatives like weather-hint or search-query-len, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. An agent would have to guess when this generic index is 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Key discarded' which is ambiguous—it could mean the key input is discarded after checking, but there is no key parameter, and no mention of side effects, return format, or validation behavior for the other parameters. The description fails to disclose what actually happens.

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, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified. It does not earn its place because it provides almost no actionable information and omits critical context about the tool's actual scope.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine which parameter to use, what the tool returns, or how it behaves. The description is far too minimal for the tool's complexity.

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

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

While the schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter, the tool description does not map any of these parameters to the purported Jira key check. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and actually misleads by implying a single key input, whereas the schema lists many unrelated 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?

The description states 'Check a Jira issue key shape' but the input schema contains nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no obvious relation to a Jira key. This creates confusion rather than clarity, and it does not differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape.

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 exclusions, and no context about the intended input format. The description leaves the agent to guess which parameter represents the Jira key or whether the tool accepts multiple inputs simultaneously.

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