America/Guayaquil clock

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: 'Task text discarded.' However, it doesn't mention side effects, cost implications (despite 'pay-per-call'), authentication needs, or output format. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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

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

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a behavioral note. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it might benefit from slightly more 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?

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain how the parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) relate to the tool's function or which to provide. An agent cannot reliably call this 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 each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies. It doesn't clarify which of the 9 parameters are relevant to the tool's 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 verb and resource: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)' and lists what it returns (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This is clear and distinct from sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose it over other tools like web-fetch or citation.

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 states that no browser is launched, but does not reveal whether the tool makes network requests, what it returns, or how it handles the many parameters. The schema descriptions for some params (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') imply side effects, but the description itself is silent, leaving behavior largely 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 concise with two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no other metadata; brevity here sacrifices necessary context. It is not excessively verbose, but it does not earn its place as an adequate 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?

The description is grossly incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it behaves with different parameter combinations, or any side effects. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on this 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning. More importantly, the tool's stated purpose (checking a URL) does not align with parameters like city, json, path, zone, or query, and the description does not explain why they exist. The schema descriptions are self-contained but do not reconcile with the purpose, so the description fails to add value beyond the schema and even introduces confusion.

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 resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a distinguishing caveat ('No browser is launched'). However, it is vague about what 'can be opened' entails (network request, HTTP status, etc.) and does not differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url. The input schema includes many non-URL parameters (city, json, path, zone, query) that contradict the narrow purpose, undermining 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'No browser is launched,' which hints at a lightweight check but does not explicitly mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives such as playwright-url-ok. An agent cannot infer the appropriate context for invoking this tool.

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 that page content is not stored, which is useful, but it fails to mention that many parameters are discarded (as the schema descriptions indicate) or that the tool only returns host, scheme, and HTTP status. The description does not contradict annotations, but it is far too sparse to be transparent 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but lacks the context needed for a tool with this many parameters. It earns a 4 because it is structurally efficient, though 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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema. The description is only one sentence and does not explain the return format beyond 'host, scheme, and HTTP status', nor does it address the role of the other parameters or how they relate to the main purpose. For such complexity, the description is clearly 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's focus on URL does not map clearly to the other parameters, but the schema already explains them.

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: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch-status' or 'normalize-url', and the presence of 9 unrelated optional parameters in the schema muddies the tool's actual 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to guess based on the description alone. The note 'Page content is not stored' is a behavioral statement, not a usage guideline.

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 discloses that no identifiers are retained, which is a privacy note, but it does not describe whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes network calls, what side effects exist, or what the output format is. For a tool that accepts URLs, feeds, and file paths, this 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 concise at two sentences, with no fluff. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or explicit sections, and the brevity is due to under-specification rather than efficient packing of information. It earns a 4 for being short, but not for content density.

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, this description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what 'classification' means, what the tool returns, how the parameters are used together, or any constraints. An agent would have no idea what to expect from this tool. The privacy note is the only useful detail.

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 9 parameters already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters are used or what 'classified' means in relation to them. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description adds no value beyond it.

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 specify what kind of classification, what the request refers to, or how the many parameters contribute. The verb 'show' is weak and the resource is undefined, making it hard to distinguish from the 27 sibling tools. No 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., citation, normalize-url, validate-json). The description offers no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess which of the 9 parameters is relevant and when to invoke this tool.

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 burden. It clearly states what the tool does and, importantly, what it does not do ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), implying no ownership lookup or network fetch. This is adequate for a simple parsing utility, though output details are not explicitly 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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and adds a meaningful boundary in the second clause. Every word contributes to selection and invocation.

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 no output schema and no annotations, and the input schema allows nine optional parameters without indicating which one is the primary target. The description implies 'host' as the relevant parameter and implies the return value is labels, but it does not explicitly state the output format or confirm how unrelated parameters are handled, leaving some ambiguity for invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is described in the schema, including that most values are 'discarded' after a check. The main description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond naming 'hostname,' but the schema itself documents the parameters well enough for a baseline score.

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 and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels.' It also adds a differentiating constraint, 'without WHOIS or ownership data,' which distinguishes this from lookup-style tools and signals it is a pure shape/parsing utility.

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

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

The description implies when to use the tool: when a hostname needs to be split into labels and no ownership/WHOIS information is desired. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for preferring sibling tools such as normalize-url or github-repo-shape.

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 disclose behavior fully. It mentions the HEAD method and 'status only' output, which is useful, but it does not explain that many parameters are 'discarded after the shape check' or that the tool may validate non-URL inputs. This omission is significant for a tool with 9 parameters and no other 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and output. It is efficient and free of fluff. The brevity is a strength, but it sacrifices necessary detail about the tool's broader 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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior. It does not explain why parameters like 'city' or 'zone' exist, what 'shape check' means, or how the tool handles these alongside URL fetching. The description is incomplete and potentially misleading for agent selection and invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail; the schema already explains each field. However, the schema's phrasing like 'discarded after the shape check' is ambiguous, and the description does not clarify how parameters relate to the stated URL-status purpose, so it adds little 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 (HEAD a public URL) and output (status only), making the core purpose clear. However, the 9-parameter schema suggests the tool actually validates multiple input shapes (ref, city, json, etc.), which the description does not mention. This narrow scope is potentially misleading about the tool's full capability, so clarity is only partial.

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 siblings like browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or normalize-url. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or the appropriate context for a HEAD status check versus a full fetch. An agent has to guess based on the name and description 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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the parse intent and does not disclose that unrelated parameters such as city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query are accepted and discarded, nor does it explain whether any network access occurs or how the ref parameter behaves. The schema parameter notes mention discarding, but the description itself is silent.

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 is concise, though arguably too sparse for a tool with nine 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and nine optional parameters, one sentence is not enough context. The agent is not told what the tool returns, which parameters are meaningful for the GitHub parsing path, or how to treat the unrelated optional parameters.

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 one useful piece of semantic information: the url parameter should be a GitHub URL and the parsed result is owner/repo. It does not explain the role of the other eight parameters in the parsing operation, but the individual schema descriptions already document them.

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 specific action and resource: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' This is clear enough for an agent to know the tool handles GitHub URLs and extracts two components, and it distinguishes the tool from generic normalizers in the sibling list. It loses a point because the input schema exposes many unrelated optional parameters, creating some ambiguity about what the tool actually operates on.

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

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

The description implies the tool should be used when the input is a GitHub URL and the desired result is an owner/repo pair. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to alternatives such as figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape for non-GitHub URL shape checks.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Titles discarded' but does not explain how parameters affect the count, what side effects exist, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a tool with nine 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 two short sentences with no wasted words, which is concise. However, given the tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, this brevity veers into under-specification rather than efficient clarity.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters influence the result, what the return value looks like, or any edge cases. An agent would be unable to call this correctly without inspecting the schema and inferring 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond repeating 'titles discarded' which is also in the schema for the 'feed' parameter. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Count') and a clear resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status, so it falls short of the top score.

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 exclusion criteria. The description only states what it does without any 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?

The description discloses that the key is discarded, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, status), whether there are side effects, or how the input is processed. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded' for some parameters, but not all, and that is not a substitute for a clear behavioral 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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified. It omits critical information about how to use the tool, which parameter to supply, and what to expect in return. The brevity is not a virtue here; it is insufficient for the agent to act correctly.

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 parameters, none required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no context: it does not explain the return value, the meaning of the parameters in relation to a Jira key, or any example of valid input. For a tool with this complexity, the description is grossly 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?

While the schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, the descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL', 'City name') and none of them clearly map to a Jira issue key. The tool description does not clarify which parameter holds the key, so the parameters are semantically disconnected from the tool's stated purpose. This is misleading rather than helpful.

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 the shape of a Jira issue key. This is specific enough to differentiate from generic shape checkers like domain-shape or figma-url-shape. However, it does not define what a valid shape is, and the parameter list contains no field obviously representing a Jira key, creating ambiguity about which input is actually 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-check tools or other utilities. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description leaves the agent without any direction on appropriate usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that query and fragment are dropped, but it does not explain how invalid URLs are handled, what the output structure is, or whether the tool makes network requests. More critically, the schema implies the tool accepts many other inputs (city, json, zone, etc.) that are described as 'discarded,' which contradicts the narrow URL-normalization purpose stated in the description. This inconsistency is not 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a key behavioral detail. There is no fluff. However, given the tool's complexity (9 parameters) and the mismatch with the schema, the brevity comes at the cost of necessary context, but for conciseness alone it is 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only the URL normalization case and completely ignores the other parameters and their intended behavior. It does not explain why those parameters exist, whether they are accepted as no-ops, or if the tool has multiple modes. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly; the description is far too sparse for the 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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema provides 100% coverage, but many parameter descriptions are about being discarded after a 'shape check' (e.g., ref, city, json), which is unrelated to URL normalization. The description does not indicate which parameter (presumably 'url') is the intended input, nor does it clarify whether the other parameters are optional or ignored. An agent could easily pass the wrong parameter.

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: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It identifies a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling URL tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, and the input schema introduces many unrelated parameters (city, json, ref, etc.), which muddies the actual scope of the tool and could confuse an agent about what it really 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. The sibling list contains several URL-related tools (browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, figma-url-shape), but the description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for selection. The agent is left to infer the usage context, 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 only behavioral trait disclosed is 'No browser is launched,' which is a negative constraint. It does not explain what the tool actually does (e.g., HTTP request, DNS lookup) or that many parameters are discarded after checks. With no annotations, the description fails to carry the burden of behavioral disclosure.

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

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

The description is very short (two sentences) and therefore concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It omits essential details about parameter roles and the tool's actual operation, making it insufficient rather than appropriately 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 9 parameters, the description is extremely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how the parameters are used, or what 'URL can be opened' means in practice. The description does not meet the needs of a complex tool.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing about parameters but also does not mislead. However, it fails to clarify why unrelated parameters (e.g., city, json, zone) exist in a URL-checking 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 'Check whether a URL can be opened' which is a verb+resource, but 'can be opened' is vague (does it mean HTTP status, DNS resolution, or something else?). It also doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, and it completely ignores the 9 parameters, many of which are unrelated to URL checking.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, conditions, or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for specific scenarios.

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 behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Query discarded,' providing minimal transparency, but fails to explain what happens with the other 8 parameters or what the tool returns. The behavior is largely 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 two short sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficient.

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 a 9-parameter tool. It does not clarify which parameters are relevant (only the query?), what the return value is (no output schema), or any edge cases. The existence of many parameters without explanation creates confusion.

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 is already documented. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline 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 verb (count) and resource (characters in a search query), which is clear and not a tautology. It distinguishes from general calculation tools like calc-eval, but does not differentiate from other counting tools like memory-key-count or hn-front-count.

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. With many sibling counting tools, an agent has no way to know if search-query-len is the right choice for a given task.

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 states 'Prompt discarded' without clarifying that all nine parameters are effectively ignored, nor does it mention any side effects, output format, or limitations. The behavior of the tool is largely 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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and not front-loaded with important context. It wastes no words yet fails to provide any substantive guidance, making it more under-specification than effective 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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides almost no operational detail. It does not explain what the three-step template is, what it is used for, or how parameters relate (or don't relate) to the output. An agent has no way to confidently invoke or interpret the result.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter description explicitly says it is 'discarded after' a check, so the schema already communicates that parameters are unused. The tool description adds no further meaning and does not clarify that all parameters are optional and irrelevant to the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the 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 states a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('a three-step thinking template'), so an agent can tell what the tool produces. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools that also return static shapes or hints, and 'Prompt discarded' is confusing about what input is ignored.

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 vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the intended use case. The agent is left to infer that this is for generating a generic template, but nothing says why it would be preferred over 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single sentence only states the basic function and does not mention that only the 'zone' parameter is used while others are discarded, nor does it describe error handling, network dependencies, or output format. 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 one sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, given the tool's complexity (9 parameters) and lack of annotations, the brevity results in under-specification. It is not structured to convey essential context, so it earns a mid-range 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?

The tool is complex with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the purpose of the irrelevant parameters, what happens on invalid input, or what the response looks like. This is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond pointing to 'named IANA timezone', which maps to the 'zone' parameter. Since the schema already covers parameter semantics, the description adds minimal value; baseline 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 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' clearly states the verb (get current time) and resource (named IANA timezone). It distinguishes the core function from generic time tools like utc-time, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or explain the presence of many unrelated schema parameters. This ambiguity slightly weakens purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. Usage is implied by the purpose, but no explicit direction is 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the body is discarded, but it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error), any side effects, or prerequisites. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to handle the result.

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 (one sentence), which is positive, but it omits critical information like return value and parameter mapping. It is not front-loaded with essential details beyond the basic purpose, so the conciseness comes at the expense 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the role of the other parameters, what the tool returns, or when it should be used. An agent would be unable to call this tool 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 the schema describes each parameter (100% coverage), the tool description introduces the term 'body' without mapping it to the 'json' parameter. This mismatch could confuse the agent, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions are the only useful semantic source here.

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 ('Check whether') and the target ('valid JSON'), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it uses the term 'body' which does not directly correspond to any parameter name in the schema (the schema has 'json'), creating a slight mismatch that could confuse an agent about which parameter 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., fetch-status, domain-shape). It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context without support.

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 fails to mention whether the tool performs a network call (Open-Meteo), is read-only, has rate limits, or what side effects occur. It only states the basic function without any 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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 optional parameters and no required ones. It does not front-load critical scope information and omits entirely the existence of other parameters, making it more of an under-specification than a concise summary.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain return values, parameter interactions, and typical use cases. It does none of this. The mismatch between the description (weather only) and the schema (many unrelated params) leaves the agent completely unprepared to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter has a description. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'city' which is already described in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description adds no value to parameter understanding.

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 ('Current temperature') and resource ('city via Open-Meteo'), but it only mentions one of nine parameters. The schema includes many unrelated parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that are not hinted at, making the tool's actual purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading about its 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 its many siblings (e.g., geo-hint, timezone, fetch-status). No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage from the sparse description.

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