Asia/Bangkok clock

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that task text is discarded and that connection methods are returned, but it does not reveal side effects, whether network calls are made, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to the provided parameters beyond the discard hints in the schema. This is 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 two short sentences and is front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise and avoids extraneous detail. However, the brevity contributes to the lack of clarity in other dimensions, so it is not a perfect score, but structurally it is 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully insufficient. It does not explain the return format ('connection methods'), how the parameters influence the result, or what the tool does with each parameter. The examples of tasks are not mapped to the schema, leaving an agent with little to go on. It is a complex tool with a minimal 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% and each parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3, but the tool description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain how parameters like 'city' or 'url' are used to find a gateway, nor how they map to the tasks (weather, search, etc.). The description leaves the relationship between the parameters and the tool's purpose unexplained, which is a significant 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 states a specific verb ('find') and resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway'), with example tasks (weather, search, scrape, voice). However, it does not clarify how the parameters (e.g., city, url, query) relate to the task or how the task is specified. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like weather-hint or web-fetch, leaving the exact purpose 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no comparison with sibling tools. The description does not help an agent decide between this and tools like geo-hint or search-query-len.

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 says 'Expression discarded', which is meaningless given there is no expression parameter. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens with the listed inputs, leaving the agent completely in the dark.

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, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not front-load any useful information, and every word is either irrelevant or misleading.

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 and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's functionality, how to invoke it, or what to expect. The 'Expression discarded' comment is nonsensical, and an agent would have no idea how to 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?

Although the schema documents each parameter, the description adds no value and directly contradicts the schema by suggesting an arithmetic operation that none of the parameters support. It fails to explain that these parameters are likely inputs to separate checks, and instead confuses the agent further.

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 claims to evaluate 'a+b style arithmetic', but the input schema contains no expression parameter. Instead it lists ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query, all unrelated to arithmetic. This is actively misleading and does not clarify the tool's real purpose, which appears to be a multi-purpose utility from the sibling set.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or any criteria that would help an agent choose this tool over its many siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose one useful fact: the title is discarded after the call, implying a stateless check. However, it does not describe network access, mutation risk, error behavior, rate limits, or return semantics, so it is only minimally transparent.

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

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

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the behavioral note is short. This is an example of suitably minimal, focused writing.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain how to map the true parameter, what result shape the agent should expect, or what indicators a successful existence check should look for. The mismatch between the declared material and the schema leaves an agent with a critical invocation gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are unrelated to the tool's stated purpose: no parameter is called 'title' and the description does not identify which of the nine parameters should contain the Wikipedia title. The description therefore fails to add usable meaning because it does not bridge the declared purpose to the actual input schema.

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

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

The description clearly states an operation: checking whether a Wikipedia title exists. It names a specific resource not represented by sibling tools, making the tool easy to select. It would need a bit more detail to earn a 5, but it is certainly not vague or tautological.

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 web-fetch, fetch-status, or validate-json. The sentence 'Title discarded after the call' is a behavioral note, not usage guidance; it does not describe suitable input scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to call the tool.

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