America/Mexico_City clock

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 notes that 'task text discarded' and that it returns connection methods, but it does not disclose potential costs, rate limits, authentication needs, error behavior, or what 'pay-per-call' entails.

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 and well-structured, with no unnecessary wording. It states the core purpose, the return type, and a relevant caveat about discarded task text in just two sentences.

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

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

The description lacks essential context: there is no output schema, no explanation of 'connection methods', no guidance on how the optional parameters relate to the task, and no indication of required input shape. Given the tool's discovery role and 9 ambiguous parameters, the description is not sufficiently complete for reliable 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a short description, but several descriptions are cryptic (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') and do not clarify how these optional parameters should be used to find a gateway. The semantics add some meaning but leave significant ambiguity.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding a public pay-per-call tool gateway for task types like weather, search, scrape, or voice, and returning connection methods. It is reasonably distinct from the sibling tools, which appear to be specific utilities rather than an index/discovery tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling tools. It mentions example task types but does not explain selection criteria, nor does it contrast with alternatives like 'normalize-url' or 'weather-hint'.

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?

It discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful behavioral note, but it omits other important details such as whether the tool performs network requests, any side effects, or required permissions. With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility but provides only minimal transparency.

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 succinct and to the point, using two short sentences to convey the core function and a key behavioral detail. There is no unnecessary verbiage or redundancy.

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

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

Given the complexity introduced by four disparate parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how parameters are used, what output format to expect, or how this tool fits into the broader toolkit. The lack of an output schema and any example usage further reduces completeness.

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 descriptions are minimal and do not clarify how parameters like 'json' and 'zone' relate to the stated purpose of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent uncertain about the role of each 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 states a clear function ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), but the parameter list includes 'json' and 'zone' which are unrelated to this purpose, creating confusion about the tool's actual scope. The presence of sibling tools like normalize-url and validate-json further blurs its distinct role.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or validate-json. It does not mention any conditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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 one behavioral trait: 'No identifiers are retained', indicating a privacy-preserving behavior. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it makes network calls, or how the inputs are processed. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the brevity contributes to vagueness, and it does not earn its place by adding critical details. It is structured adequately but lacks substance.

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

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

Given four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what classification output the agent should expect, how to interpret the results, or how the parameters influence the classification. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based solely 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, not even how the parameters relate to the classification result. It relies entirely on 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 the verb 'show' and the resource 'how this request is classified', but it does not specify what classification system or criteria it uses. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url, which also deal with request components. This is clear but vague.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description gives no guidance on selecting this over sibling tools like citation or domain-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?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool does not return WHOIS or data, which is a behavioral note, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or the exact nature of the output. The 'discarded after the check' hint for the json parameter is buried and not tied to the main action.

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, efficient sentence that states the core function. It is appropriately concise, but it lacks any structured breakdown of inputs or outputs, which slightly reduces the score.

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

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must be self-sufficient. It does not specify which parameter is the hostname, what the output format is, or how the parameters relate to the action. The tool is far from complete for an agent to use 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 includes four parameters (url, host, json, zone), each with descriptions unrelated to the tool's purpose. The description does not explain which parameter is the hostname or how the others relate to splitting a hostname. The parameter descriptions are contradictory and misleading, and the tool description adds no clarifying 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 clearly states the action ('Split a hostname into labels') and what it does not do ('without WHOIS or data'). However, it does not clarify which of the four parameters is the hostname, introducing ambiguity about the input.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any sibling tools, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states a noun phrase and gives no indication of what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, side effects, or any operational details. This is a significant gap for a tool with four 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 extremely short (one sentence), but it is not effectively concise—it lacks substance and does not earn its place. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing almost no useful 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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters are used together, or any expected behavior, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke 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% and each parameter has its own description in the schema (e.g., 'IANA timezone name' for zone). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, the tool description does not connect these parameters to the tool's purpose, which slightly reduces its value.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') that does not state a verb or explicit action. It does not clarify what the tool does with the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone), nor does it distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The purpose is vague and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context to select it appropriately among the sibling 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 the basic behavior (fetch and return group counts) but does not mention error handling, side effects, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. With no annotations, this limited disclosure 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 a single, clear sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it omits necessary parameter context, which slightly reduces its 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?

The description fails to explain the parameters, what 'group counts' means, or how the tool behaves in edge cases. This makes it insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional information.

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

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

The description does not explain how the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to fetching robots.txt. The schema descriptions are generic and appear copied from other tools (e.g., 'JSON text to validate', 'IANA timezone name'), providing no meaningful semantics for this 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' This is specific and distinguishes it from generic tools by limiting the output to group counts.

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 states the basic action without any context for when it is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not mention return format (e.g., string vs object), error handling for invalid URLs, or any side effects. The statement 'Return origin, host, and path' is vague about the exact output structure.

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

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

The description is exceptionally concise, using two short sentences with no redundant wording. It delivers the essential information about what the tool does and what it discards.

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

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

The description lacks critical context: it does not specify the return format, error behavior, or how to handle the extra parameters listed in the schema. Given the absence of an output schema and the unexplained parameters, an agent might not know what to expect or how 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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), but the tool description only references 'url'. It adds no additional meaning about the roles of 'host', 'json', or 'zone', which appear unrelated to URL normalization and could confuse an agent about whether they are required or optional.

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') and the specific resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL') with a precise scope ('Query and fragment are dropped'), making its purpose unmistakable even without sibling context.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'domain-shape' or 'inspect-robots', nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. It simply states the function without contextual usage advice.

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 only says it is a catalog, but the input schema includes unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) that suggest additional behavior (normalization, validation, timezone checks). The description does not disclose what the tool does with these inputs, whether it is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. This is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified and lacks structure. It does not front-load key information or provide any context about the tool's behavior or parameters. Conciseness is not the issue; the problem is that the description is too sparse to be useful.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters are used, what the tool returns, or how it relates to the stated purpose. An agent would not know how to call this tool correctly or interpret results. The description fails to cover essential operational details.

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 has 100% description coverage for parameters, but the tool description adds no value in explaining them. The parameters (url, host, json, zone) appear completely unrelated to HTTP status codes, creating confusion. The description does not help map these parameters to the tool's stated purpose, and the schema descriptions themselves may not clarify how they relate to a status code catalog.

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 the tool is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes', which conveys a subject matter but not an action. It lacks a clear verb (like 'list', 'return', or 'get') and does not explain how the tool operates or what it does with input. It is distinguishable from siblings by topic, but the purpose is still vague.

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 any conditions, contexts, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that it might be useful for HTTP status code lookups, but no explicit instructions exist.

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 explaining behavior. It states the primary output (current time) but does not mention error handling, validation behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. Minimal but not misleading.

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 with no fluff. It is well-structured for a simple tool, though it lacks the detail needed to compensate for the confusing 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 incomplete given the mismatched input schema. It does not explain that only 'zone' is used, does not describe the output format, and does not address potential errors. The agent is left uncertain about how to handle the unrelated 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?

The input schema includes four parameters, but only 'zone' is relevant to the description. The 'url', 'host', and 'json' parameters have descriptions that suggest unrelated functionality, and the tool description provides no clarification that they are extraneous or how they relate to the timezone lookup.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns the current time for a named IANA timezone, which distinguishes it from broader time utilities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like utc-time or tz-america-mexico-city.

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 use case is implied: call this when needing the current time for an arbitrary IANA timezone. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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

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

The description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is silent on whether the operation is read-only or what happens with invalid input.

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, making it extremely concise and easy to read. It is appropriately sized for the simple function it describes, though it omits essential context about parameters.

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 severely incomplete given the tool's actual schema. It fails to explain why parameters like 'url' and 'json' exist or how they relate to retrieving a local time. This creates confusion and diminishes the tool's usability.

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 does not reference any of the four parameters (url, host, json, zone). The parameter descriptions in the schema are generic and appear unrelated to the tool's stated purpose, so the description adds no meaningful context for how parameters should be used.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as providing the current local time for America/Mexico_City, which is a specific and unambiguous function. However, it could be more explicit by saying 'returns' or 'gets' the 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?

The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. It does not mention any conditions or alternatives, leaving the selection entirely to the agent.

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, but it only states that it returns a current UTC timestamp. It does not explain that the tool accepts four parameters (url, host, json, zone) that appear unrelated to timestamp retrieval, nor does it disclose whether these parameters affect the output or if any side effects occur. The description is completely opaque about the tool's behavior beyond a trivial output 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 extremely concise at a single sentence, which is efficient in length, but it is so terse that it omits essential context. It is front-loaded with the only fact, but the structure offers no elaboration or organization. While brevity is positive, the description is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful.

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 more complex than the description suggests, with four parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain how these parameters are used, what the output format is, or how it differs from related tools. It is grossly incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially given the apparent disconnect between the name and the 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 schema itself documents each parameter. However, the tool description adds no value beyond the schema and does not reconcile the mismatch between the stated purpose (UTC timestamp) and the parameters (url, host, json, zone). An agent would be confused about why these parameters exist and how they relate to the tool's function, so the description fails to compensate for the semantic gap.

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.' essentially restates the tool name 'utc-time' without adding a specific verb or distinguishing it from siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. It lacks a clear verb-resource structure and fails to communicate the tool's actual scope, which is further muddied by the presence of unrelated parameters.

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 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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 mentions that 'the body is discarded,' which is a side-effect statement, but it fails to clarify whether the tool performs a network request (given the url/host parameters) or operates on the provided json parameter. The actual behavior is under-specified, and no annotations are available to supplement.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It directly states the core function and a key side-effect (discarding the body), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 critically incomplete. It does not explain the role of the url, host, and zone parameters, nor does it specify the expected output or behavior of the validation (e.g., return value, success/failure indication). Given the parameter complexity, the description fails to provide essential context for correct usage.

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

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

Although each parameter has a description, they are incoherent with the tool's stated purpose. The 'json' parameter aligns with validation, but 'url', 'host', and 'zone' appear unrelated to JSON validation and are not explained in the tool description. The description's reference to 'body' does not map clearly to any parameter, creating 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 clearly states the action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and identifies the resource (JSON). The name 'validate-json' reinforces this purpose. However, the term 'body' is ambiguous, and it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from potential alternatives, though no sibling tool directly competes.

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 other available tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites, scenarios, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without clear direction on when to invoke this functionality.

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