application/json marker

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 and does add one useful fact: 'Page content is not stored.' However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, whether a network request is made per URL, whether rate limits apply, or how failures are surfaced. The single privacy note is helpful but leaves most behavioral questions unanswered.

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

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

Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence ('Page content is not stored') earns its place as behavioral context. The description could be longer given the parameter ambiguity, but as written it is appropriately lean.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the role of json and zone, when to pass them, what the return format looks like, or how invalid or unreachable URLs are handled. The garbled sibling names hint at a larger family (normalize-url, status-catalog), but the description doesn't situate this tool within it.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the 4 parameters is already documented (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', 'IANA timezone name'). The description adds no meaning beyond this; its mention of 'host, scheme, and HTTP status' maps only loosely to the url and host params and doesn't clarify json or zone.

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

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

The description names a concrete action ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), which avoids a tautology, but it only covers part of the tool's surface: the json param ('JSON text to validate') and zone param ('IANA timezone name') have no connection to URL citation. It doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no sibling tool is named and no conditions are stated. The only scope cue is 'for a URL,' but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over normalize-url, status-catalog, or inspect-robots.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral fact: 'No identifiers are retained,' which gives a privacy signal. However, it does not disclose whether the check is read-only, whether data is sent externally, 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 short and contains no fluff, and the privacy note is front-loaded at the end. However, it is under-specified: the brevity comes at the cost of essential details, so it is not an appropriately sized description for a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema.

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

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

The description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not explain what the output is, what 'request' refers to, how the four parameters affect the result, or how compatibility is determined. The privacy note is helpful but does not compensate for the missing core semantics, especially with no output schema and many sibling tools.

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 input schema already documents url, host, json, and zone with brief descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters influence the classification or whether some are mutually exclusive. This meets the baseline but does not go 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 says 'Show how this request is classified,' but does not explain what 'classified' means, what kind of classification is performed, or how it relates to the tool name 'compatibility.' It is not an outright tautology, but it is too vague to tell an agent what the tool actually does or how it differs from siblings like validate-json or domain-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 such as normalize-url, validate-json, iana-zones, or citation. The description does not state which parameters to provide, whether the parameters are alternatives or combined, or what problem this tool is meant to solve.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose one important boundary (no WHOIS/ownership lookup), but it does not describe output shape, error behavior, or how the extra `url`, `json`, and `zone` inputs are handled, leaving real gaps.

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 entire definition is one front-loaded sentence, with no filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core function.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and four optional inputs that are not obviously related to hostname splitting, a single sentence leaves too much unspecified. An agent can guess `host`, but will not know why `url`, `json`, and `zone` are accepted or what the returned shape will be.

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

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

Input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.

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

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

The description names a concrete operation ('split') and a specific resource ('hostname'), and adds a scope qualifier ('without WHOIS or ownership data') that separates it from ownership-lookup or URL-normalizing siblings. This is enough to know what the tool is for.

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 'without WHOIS or ownership data' phrase implies the tool is for pure label extraction rather than enrichment, but no sibling alternative is named and no when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions are given. An agent must infer usage from context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states that the tool relates to common IANA timezone names. It does not explain whether the tool lists zones, validates a zone parameter, returns metadata, or has side effects. The behavior is effectively opaque.

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 economical, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It conveys almost no actionable information and lacks any structural guidance for invoking the tool.

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

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

The tool has 4 heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a vague label. There is no explanation of return value, invocation pattern, or how the parameters contribute to the tool's purpose. This is far from complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The schema explains each parameter individually, but the tool description adds no meaning about how url, host, and json relate to IANA timezone names, leaving the semantic connection unclear.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') with no verb indicating what the tool does—list, return, suggest, or validate. It restates the tool's name ('iana-zones') without specifying an action or resource, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes related time/timezone tools, but the description never mentions them or gives selection criteria. A caller cannot determine whether to use this tool or a sibling.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that the tool fetches a public resource and returns counts. It says nothing about failure modes, size or rate limits, side effects, or what happens when the json or zone parameters are supplied.

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

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

One short sentence with no filler; the core action and output scope are front-loaded. The description earns its place, though the resulting under-specification is captured in other dimensions.

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

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

This is a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that does not explain how the parameters map to the stated purpose. The mismatch between the description and the schema leaves an agent with no reliable way to call the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter meaning and actually conflicts with the schema: it promises a robots.txt fetch while url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and json as text to 'validate; discarded after the check.' An agent cannot tell which parameter supplies the robots.txt source, making invocation a guess.

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

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

States a specific action (Fetch) on a specific resource (public robots.txt) and constrains the output to 'group counts only,' giving the tool a distinct job beyond the name. However, the connection between this purpose and the four input parameters is never established, which slightly undermines 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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The 'only' in 'return group counts only' hints at a scoping preference but is not developed into usable routing 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not state whether the tool reads, validates, transforms, or mutates, nor does it mention side effects, return behavior, or constraints beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 but is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is a fragment that does not explain the tool's behavior, making it insufficient regardless of its 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 no output schema, no annotations, and four heterogeneous parameters, 'application/json marker' is far too little information for an agent to call the tool correctly. The description needs to explain what the tool does with url/host/json/zone and how it relates to siblings like validate-json.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (url, host, json, zone) having its own description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents all parameters.

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

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

The description 'application/json marker' is a noun phrase that largely restates the tool name and gives no clear action, resource, or outcome. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url, which likely have overlapping purposes.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any sibling. The description lacks context such as 'use when...' or 'use X instead for...', so an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped. However, it omits the output format, what happens to the other accepted parameters (host, json, zone), and any side effects, leaving substantial behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences and no filler. However, the brevity contributes to the lack of explanation about the non-URL parameters, so it slightly sacrifices completeness for conciseness.

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

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

The description is complete for the URL behavior but not for the full tool surface. The schema exposes host, json, and zone parameters that are unexplained and seemingly unrelated to URL normalization. With no output schema or annotations, an agent cannot confidently determine how to use this tool for those inputs.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context only for the url parameter by explaining that query and fragment are stripped. It adds nothing about host, json, or zone, and does not clarify why these parameters appear in a tool named normalize-url.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('URL'), and specifies exactly what is extracted (origin, host, path) and dropped (query, fragment). It is not tautological and gives the agent a clear sense of what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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

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

The description offers no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate-json or inspect-robots. It implies a URL-oriented use case through the tool name and first sentence, but provides no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only offers a noun phrase. It omits whether the tool performs reads, network calls, lookups, or validation, and completely fails to explain the relevance of parameters like url, json, zone, and host to a catalog of HTTP status codes.

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 in length but under-specified to the point of uselessness. The single sentence provides no operational content, so it cannot be considered efficient; it is closer to a placeholder than a helpful definition.

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

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

The tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description gives no clue about return values, parameter usage, or behavior. For an agent to invoke this tool correctly it would need to guess the purpose and input semantics from the name alone, which is completely inadequate.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema provides per-parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds no meaning linking these parameters to the stated purpose. The mismatch between the tool's description and its parameters is a gap, but the schema itself is sufficiently explicit.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' largely restates the tool name 'status-catalog' and lacks a verb or action. It does not specify whether the tool lists, looks up, explains, or transforms status codes, leaving the operation ambiguous.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the ten siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or contexts, so an agent has no basis for selecting this tool over others like citation or mime-json.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does state the primary behavior: returning the current time in a specified timezone. It does not disclose output format, invalid-zone handling, or default behavior, but for a simple read-only time lookup the core behavior is reasonably transparent.

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

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

The description is an efficient one-line summary with no filler, front-loading the resource and scope. It is concise but leans toward a label rather than a full sentence, lacking a verb form or any parameter-oriented 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the overall definition is incomplete for an agent: there is no output schema, no annotations, and the schema contains three apparently irrelevant parameters (url, host, json) with none required, yet the tool semantically needs a zone. The description does not clarify how the zone is supplied or what the response looks like.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description need not repeat parameter details. The description aligns with the 'zone' parameter but adds no extra meaning and does not help reconcile the unrelated url, host, and json parameters present in 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 clearly states the tool returns the current time for a named IANA timezone, which identifies the core resource and scope. It is more informative than the tool name alone, but it does not name or contrast sibling tools such as utc-time or iana-zones.

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

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

The phrase 'named IANA timezone' implies this tool is for getting timezone-specific current time, which is a reasonable usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose, especially given the closely related utc-time and iana-zones siblings.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the output and discloses nothing about how the optional parameters affect behavior, whether the tool has side effects, or what happens with invalid input. The presence of four unrelated parameters without explanation is a transparency gap.

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

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

The description is extremely short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks essential context about parameters and usage, so brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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

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

For a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It covers only the basic return value and leaves the role of every input parameter unexplained. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call beyond invoking it with no arguments.

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

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

The schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not connect url/host/json/zone to the UTC timestamp function. Thus the description neither helps nor hurts 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 'Current UTC timestamp.' clearly identifies the tool's output as the current UTC time. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and it does not differentiate from the sibling 'timezone' tool. The mismatch with the input schema (url, host, json, zone) also muddies what the tool actually does.

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 timezone or compatibility. There is no indication of when the optional parameters should be supplied or whether they are ever needed. An agent must guess at the intended call pattern.

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 behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key side effect (the body is discarded), but it does not specify the return value, response format, or error behavior for invalid JSON. This partial disclosure is helpful but not complete.

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

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

Two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the side-effect stated immediately after. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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

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

The description is mostly adequate for a simple validation tool, but it does not clarify the roles of the unrelated url, host, and zone parameters that appear in the schema, nor does it specify the return behavior since there is no output schema. This leaves some ambiguity about which parameters actually apply and what the caller receives.

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 of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; the 'json' parameter is already well-described in the schema as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and resource ('a body') and clearly states the tool's scope: JSON validity validation with the body discarded. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url or cite-url, whose purposes involve transformation or citation rather than validation.

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 'The body is discarded' provides clear context that this tool is for validation only, not for extraction or further processing. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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