Port 993

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that task text is discarded and that it returns connection methods, but it omits any details about side effects, auth, or rate limits. The disclosure is minimal and incomplete for a tool with 9 optional 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 brief and to the point, with two sentences and no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, but the second sentence about discarding task text adds ambiguity rather than clarity, slightly reducing 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 tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain how to invoke the tool, what to pass, or what the returned connection methods look like. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without additional context, making it critically incomplete.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. It doesn't explain which parameters correspond to the 'task' or how they are used. The note that task text is discarded is confusing and doesn't map to any parameter, so the agent lacks semantic guidance.

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 (find a public pay-per-call tool gateway) and lists example tasks (weather, search, scrape, voice). It is distinguishable from sibling tools, which are specific utility tools, but it doesn't clarify how the tool accepts a task, making the purpose somewhat abstract.

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 any sibling. The description doesn't mention alternatives or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer that it's a meta-tool for locating gateways, but without explicit routing cues.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that no browser is launched, but it does not explain what 'check whether a URL can be opened' actually entails (e.g., does it perform a network request? does it validate format only?). The parameter descriptions hint that many inputs are 'discarded after the check,' but the tool description omits this behavior entirely, leaving the agent in the dark about side effects and semantics.

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—a single sentence—which is efficient in length. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful; conciseness here is not balanced with adequate information. There is no structure or front-loading of critical details beyond the caveat about no browser.

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 tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too thin: it does not explain return values, the relationship between parameters, when the tool is applicable, or any behavior beyond 'no browser.' Given the complexity, this is completely inadequate for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all nine parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. The tool description adds no additional context about the parameters, so it stays at the baseline 3. It does not help an agent understand how the parameters relate to the stated URL-checking 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 specific action ('check whether a URL can be opened') and a disambiguating caveat ('No browser is launched'), but the input schema lists nine unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone, query, etc.) that have nothing to do with URLs. The purpose is ambiguous and the description does not reconcile the stated scope with the actual parameter set, nor does it differentiate from siblings like normalize-url or fetch-status.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about the intended use case, no exclusion conditions, and no mention of sibling tools such as playwright-url-ok or normalize-url. An agent cannot infer when this tool 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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral claim is 'Expression discarded', which is ambiguous and does not explain return values, side effects, rate limits, or required permissions. The tool's actual behavior is completely 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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential details and does not front-load any useful context. Every sentence fails to earn its place because it provides almost no actionable 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine the expected input format, the return value, or the purpose of the tool. The mismatch between the description and schema compounds the incompleteness.

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%, all nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are unrelated to the stated arithmetic purpose. The description adds no meaning to these parameters and does not explain how any of them relate to an expression. The tool cannot be invoked correctly because the mapping between purpose and parameters is missing.

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

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

The description states a verb and resource ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic') but is vague about what exactly is being evaluated and how the expression is provided. It says 'Expression discarded' without clarifying whether the result is returned or only the evaluation side-effect matters. It does distinguish from siblings since no other tool is arithmetic, but the purpose is not concrete enough for an agent to know what to pass.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or any context for choosing it over the 29 sibling tools. An agent has no idea if this is a calculator, a test harness, or something else.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose that most parameters are discarded after the check, that no disk access occurs, or any return format. It only mentions the absence of WHOIS data, which is minor.

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?

It is a single sentence, so concise, but it is under-specified and does not front-load the actual broad purpose. The brevity sacrifices necessary 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. It omits what happens with all other parameter types, any return values, and the general utility. It only describes a narrow subset.

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, each clearly explaining its role and discarding behavior. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a specific action 'split a hostname into labels' but the tool has 9 parameters covering URL, JSON, timezone, path, etc., so it is misleading about the tool's actual scope. It does not convey that this is a general shape checker across many input types.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or geo-hint. The only hint is 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which implicitly excludes some tools but does not name alternatives or 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It only mentions 'return status only' but does not disclose that many parameters are discarded after validation, that no disk access occurs for path, or that the tool appears to validate shapes rather than perform actual network fetches for non-URL inputs. This is a significant gap 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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the URL aspect while ignoring the broader scope, making it efficient but incomplete. The conciseness comes at the cost of accuracy and 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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does with non-URL inputs, what 'status only' means in terms of return format, or how it relates to the many sibling tools. An agent cannot correctly call this tool for most of its parameter types based on this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description adds nothing about parameter meanings beyond the schema, but per the rubric baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers everything. It does not clarify the relationship between the URL-centric description and the other parameter types.

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 'HEAD a public URL and return status only', which is specific but misleading. The tool's schema accepts 9 diverse parameters (city, json, path, zone, query, etc.) that are not URLs, so the description only covers a fraction of the tool's actual scope. It does not distinguish from sibling URL-checking tools like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many siblings that also check URLs or perform similar validation, the description provides no routing information 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details—what it returns, side effects, or limitations. It does not disclose that many parameters are 'discarded' or that it performs shape checks, leaving the agent with no expectations.

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 brief (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks structure and fails to convey essential information, making it more of a placeholder than a useful 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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly inadequate. It provides no explanation of the tool's core function, return values, or usage context, making it impossible for an agent to use it 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?

Although the schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), the tool description adds no integration or guidance on how parameters are used together. The parameter descriptions hint at shape-checking, but the tool description fails to connect them to a coherent function, so the agent cannot infer which parameters 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is vague and does not specify a clear action (list, validate, convert, etc.). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', and the presence of unrelated parameters (url, city, json) further obscures 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions 'clock calls' without any context on selection criteria, prerequisites, 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 description states 'Key discarded,' which implies the input is not stored, but this is minimal and ambiguous since it doesn't identify which key. There is no mention of side effects, network access, or return value. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure and fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.

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 (two short sentences), which is good, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential structure such as a mapping of the key parameter or an example of the expected key shape. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of necessary detail, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 or annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain which parameter is the key, the expected format (e.g., 'PROJ-123'), the return type, or any behavioral details. The agent has no way to correctly invoke this tool based on the description.

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 parameter has a description, but the tool description does not clarify which parameter is the Jira key. The agent cannot map the purpose to a specific parameter, and the description adds no value beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 for high coverage is lowered because the description creates ambiguity about parameter usage.

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'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, it does not specify which of the nine input parameters holds the Jira key, so the agent cannot determine how to supply the key. This vagueness reduces 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as domain-shape or github-repo-shape. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection criteria, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description leaves the agent to infer usage, which is inadequate.

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 response body is discarded, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It does not mention that many parameters are ignored after checks, nor does it cover side effects, permissions, or limitations.

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 one sentence, but it is not well-structured or front-loaded with the most critical information. It omits any hint about how to use the tool, making the brevity counterproductive.

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 explanation of how the tool behaves, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what combinations of parameters are expected, what the return value looks like, or what the tool actually does beyond a vague URL 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description that explains its purpose and discard behavior. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('HTTP status for a URL') but adds the qualifier 'public library docs', which is not supported by the input schema that includes parameters for weather, timezone, JSON validation, file paths, and more. This makes the purpose misleading and inconsistent with the actual tool signature.

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 like fetch-status or browser-url-ok. No context about what a 'hint' means, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only says 'short catalog' which implies a read-only reference, but the parameters suggest side-effect-free checks ('discarded after the shape check'). No information is given about what the tool returns, whether it performs validation, or what 'discarded' means. The behavior is 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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, but the brevity sacrifices essential information. Still, it earns credit for not being verbose.

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 nine-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides no explanation of how the parameters are used, what the tool returns, or why the status-code catalog relates to inputs like 'zone' or 'query'. An agent has no way to correctly invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has its own description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and its stated purpose (status codes) is unrelated to the parameters, so it does not enhance comprehension. Per rubric, baseline 3 applies for high coverage, but the mismatch prevents any upward adjustment.

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 resource ('catalog of common HTTP status codes') but no verb or operation, and it fails to connect that purpose to the nine unrelated input parameters (URL, city, JSON, path, etc.). It does not distinguish itself from any of the 27 sibling tools and leaves the agent guessing 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any use case, scenario, or exclusion, and the description's mention of a status-code catalog conflicts with the schema's validation-oriented parameters, offering no context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it returns a template and discards the prompt, but does not state whether it performs network calls, accesses files, or has side effects. The schema hints that parameters are 'discarded' or used for 'checks', but that information is in the schema, not the description. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal statement.

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 short sentence, which is concise but not appropriately sized given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations). It is under-specified rather than efficiently condensed. The single sentence does not convey enough information to justify 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain what the three-step template is, how parameters affect the output, or what the tool actually does. An agent cannot correctly call or interpret this tool based on the provided description.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, each indicating whether it is discarded or used for a check. Per the rubric, a high coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since the schema already documents them well, this is acceptable.

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 it returns a 'three-step thinking template' but gives no detail on what that template is or how it relates to the 9 input parameters. It does not distinguish this tool from any of its 27 siblings, and the phrase 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous about whether the input parameters are ignored. The purpose is only slightly more informative than the tool name, so it borders on tautology.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no basis to decide between this and tools like 'calc-eval' or 'normalize-url'.

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 discloses the use of the external Open-Meteo service but omits important behavioral details: what happens if the city is not found, rate limits, response format, or that all parameters except city are effectively ignored. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded', but the tool description does not, leaving behavior 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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it under-specifies the tool's behavior given the broad schema, so the brevity works against completeness. It is not verbose, but it lacks essential context, making it less useful than a slightly longer, more informative description.

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 severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the additional parameters, the return value, error behavior, or any limitations. An agent would be unable to correctly call this tool for any scenario beyond the simplest city lookup without referring to the schema, which still leaves behavioral gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are individually documented in the schema. The description adds only minimal value by explicitly linking the city parameter to temperature lookup, but it does not clarify why the other 8 parameters exist or how they interact with the described function. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter 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 states a clear verb (get), resource (current temperature), and scope (for a city), and it names the data source (Open-Meteo). It distinguishes itself from siblings like geo-hint and lib-docs-hint by its specific function. However, the input schema contains 8 other parameters unrelated to weather, which the description does not acknowledge, potentially confusing an agent about the tool's full scope.

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. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without explaining context or why an agent might choose it over other hint 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 'title' is discarded after the call, which is a useful behavioral hint. However, there is no mention of return values, error behavior, or the fact that the schema contains no 'title' parameter, making the actual operation opaque. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to clarify what happens beyond the discard note.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it omits critical details about how the title is supplied and what the tool does beyond discarding it, making the conciseness a detriment rather than an asset.

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, none required, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain which parameter holds the Wikipedia title, what constitutes a valid title, or what the result of the check is. The agent cannot correctly invoke the tool based on this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. However, the tool description does not map any parameter to the 'title' it claims to check. The mention of 'Title' is disconnected from the schema's parameters (ref, url, city, etc.), which are unrelated to Wikipedia titles. The description adds no useful parameter semantics and actively confuses the mapping.

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 purpose: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' The verb 'check' and resource 'Wikipedia title' are specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling check tools like file-path-ok or browser-url-ok, and the schema has no 'title' parameter, which creates ambiguity about what is actually being checked.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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