Asia/Tokyo 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 discloses a meaningful behavioral fact ('Page content is not stored'), signaling a privacy-conscious fetch operation. However, it doesn't mention whether an HTTP request is made, redirect handling, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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

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

Two short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the privacy caveat is added as a secondary sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 accepts four unrelated parameters, has no output schema, and no annotations. The description only explains the URL aspect and not the json/zone/host parameters' roles or expected outputs. For a tool this overloaded, the description is 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%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description only covers the 'url'-related behavior and adds no meaning for the 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters, but the baseline 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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is informative and matches the primary purpose, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools since none are 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The description only explains what the action returns, leaving the agent to infer 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait — 'No identifiers are retained' — which is useful privacy/retention context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what authorization is needed.

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

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

Two short sentences with zero wasted words, and the key privacy trait is front-loaded. It is appropriately compact for the amount of information it conveys.

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 tool with four polymorphic parameters (url, host, json, zone) and no output schema. An agent cannot determine what classification result to expect, how the different inputs select behavior, or when this tool should be chosen. The privacy note is the only contextual anchor.

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 four parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description says 'Show how this request is classified' but never defines what 'this request' refers to or what the classification output looks like. It borders on tautology because the tool is named 'compatibility' and the description merely restates a vague classification idea without naming a concrete resource or output.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The sibling-tools context appears to be corrupted noise rather than real sibling names, so the description provides no differentiation among related 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait: the tool does not provide WHOIS or ownership data, implying a local, read-only parse. However, it does not explain behavior for url, json, or zone inputs, nor does it describe output format or side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the action. The qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' earns its place by setting expectations. It is appropriately concise, though somewhat sparse given the breadth of the input 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 output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters, the description must do more to explain the invocation contract. It only covers hostname splitting and leaves the url, json, and zone parameters unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently determine what to pass or what to expect in return.

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 already documents all four parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify how 'host' relates to the other accepted parameters. This meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 states a specific verb ('split'), resource ('hostname'), and result ('labels'), and adds a useful exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). This distinguishes it from siblings like normalize-url. However, the input schema exposes url, json, and zone parameters that the description does not account for, so the full purpose remains somewhat unclear.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description never mentions alternatives, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use normalize-url for URL normalization' or 'use validate-json for JSON validation'. An agent must infer selection solely from the tool name and schema.

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, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether arguments are ignored or required, or what side effects might occur. The behavior is entirely 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 short and contains no filler, but this is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. A single vague sentence does not earn its place because it fails to convey the operation, the role of the parameters, or the output.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters, so the description must supply most of the context. It does not explain what happens when the tool is called, what data is returned, or how to choose among the many sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided definition.

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 meaningful description and the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds nothing about how url, host, and json relate to 'IANA timezone names', leaving a confusing mismatch between the stated purpose and the actual parameters.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase rather than a statement of what the tool does: 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' restates the tool name and hints at a domain, but never says whether it lists, returns, validates, or configures those names. It also does not distinguish this from siblings like timezone, tz-asia-tokyo, or utc-time.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the time-related siblings or the URL/JSON tools. The phrase 'for clock calls' implies a relationship to clock functionality, but it does not explain when an agent should choose iana-zones over timezone or tz-asia-tokyo.

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 does disclose that the operation is a read-only network fetch of a public resource and explicitly limits the output to group counts. However, it does not mention potential failures, rate limits, or how 'public' is determined, which are relevant for an external fetch.

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 zero filler. It states the action, the target resource, and the output limitation in a compact form, making it easy for an agent 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description partially covers the return value by stating 'group counts only.' Still, the tool has four parameters with unclear relevance, no usage guidance, and no mention of behavioral edge cases, leaving the overall context incomplete for confident 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter context and several schema descriptions appear unrelated to robots.txt inspection (e.g., 'JSON text to validate' and 'IANA timezone name'). An agent cannot tell from the description which parameters are relevant for fetching robots.txt or how they interact, creating a real 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and names a concrete resource ('public robots.txt'), and it clarifies the output scope ('return group counts only'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'citation', so an agent must infer the distinction from the name and description alone.

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, and no exclusions or fallback conditions. An agent can only infer that it is for robots.txt inspection, leaving the decision to call it instead of 'citation' to interpretation.

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 transparency burden and does disclose a real side effect: query and fragment are deliberately dropped, a subtle gotcha that prevents agents from assuming round-trip preservation. Gaps remain around error behavior for invalid URLs, enforcement of the HTTPS requirement, and what happens when the unrelated json/zone parameters are supplied.

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

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

Two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the behavioral caveat second. Every word earns its place; there is zero filler 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?

Despite the crisp core description, this tool has no annotations, no output schema, zero required parameters, and a 4-parameter schema where three parameters (host, json, zone) do not obviously connect to URL normalization. The description does not clarify the return format, parameter roles, or edge cases, so an agent selecting and invoking this tool would face genuine 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some context for the url parameter (what normalization means here), but it does nothing to explain host, json, or zone, three parameters that appear entirely unrelated to the stated purpose. This unresolved mismatch keeps it at baseline rather than above.

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 ('Return') with a clear resource (URL) and enumerates the exact output components (origin, host, path), plus an explicit exclusion (query and fragment are dropped). This distinguishes it from siblings like validate-json and iana-zones. It loses a point because it does not differentiate itself from the overlapping domain-shape sibling, which also analyzes URL/domain structure.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would infer this tool is for extracting URL components. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or any mention of alternatives, and the sibling domain-shape plausibly overlaps with this tool's purpose without any routing hints.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses no operation, side effects, return behavior, or failure modes. The mismatch between the description's subject matter and the actual parameters leaves the agent unable to predict what invoking this tool does.

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, but this is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. No sentence earns its place because the only sentence fails to convey the tool's behavior or relationship to its inputs.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no coherent action defined, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what inputs to supply, what the tool will do with them, or what response to expect.

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%, which normally sets a baseline of 3. However, the description offers no mapping between its stated purpose (HTTP status codes) and the four parameters (url, host, json, zone), and in fact actively disorients the agent about why these parameters exist.

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 restates the tool name ('catalog' of 'status codes') with only a slight expansion to 'common HTTP status codes.' It does not state a concrete action an agent can invoke, and it is actively misleading because the input schema parameters (url, host, json, zone) have no evident connection to HTTP status codes.

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 the sibling tools (citation, compatibility, normalize-url, validate-json, timezone). No context, exclusions, or alternative routing 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, but it only states 'current time' without explaining whether the tool performs a network lookup, how the result is formatted, or why the schema also includes url/host/json parameters. The mismatch between the minimal description and the broader schema introduces ambiguity.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, which earns high marks for efficiency. However, it is arguably too terse to cover the schema's extra parameters, so some brevity is traded for 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 four parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the presence of url/host/json, the expected output format, or any behavioral side effects. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

The schema has 100% description coverage, but three of the four parameters (url, host, json) describe behaviors unrelated to timezone lookup and appear to belong to sibling tools. The description only clarifies the zone parameter, and it does nothing to resolve which parameters are actually relevant, which can mislead an agent.

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' uses a clear verb and resource, and 'IANA timezone' disambiguates from generic clock tools. It is not explicit about distinguishing itself from siblings like utc-time or tz-asia-tokyo, but the core function is immediately understandable.

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 tz-asia-tokyo. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Current local time' implies a read-only, stateless lookup, which is useful context. But the description does not disclose whether the zone parameter can override the fixed Asia/Tokyo scope, what output format is returned, or whether any other behavior such as network requests or caching occurs.

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

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led instruction, and its brevity leaves the relationship between the parameters and the tool's purpose unexplained.

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 simple read-only time lookup, the description conveys the core purpose and result. But with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves important context unstated: whether the zone parameter changes the timezone, whether the unrelated parameters are ignored, and what exact value the agent should expect in return.

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 url, host, json, and zone are each individually documented. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify why url, host, and json appear for a timezone tool, but the schema already provides the baseline documentation.

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 resource (Asia/Tokyo) and a specific outcome (current local time), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It is not a tautology because it adds the result type beyond the tool name, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like timezone or utc-time.

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

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

The intended use is implied: an agent should use this tool when it needs the current local time in Asia/Tokyo. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor any comparison to the sibling tools such as timezone, utc-time, or iana-zones.

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. The three-word description discloses nothing about return format, time resolution, side effects, or why the tool accepts url, host, json, and zone parameters that appear unrelated to the stated purpose. This is a significant transparency gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 maximally brief and front-loaded, with no wasted words. But its brevity crosses into under-specification: it says essentially nothing beyond the tool's name and fails to explain the puzzling parameter set or return 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?

Despite having no required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. The mismatch between the stated purpose ('Current UTC timestamp') and the accepted schema (url, host, json, zone) is unresolved, and an agent cannot tell what these parameters do in the context of this tool or what the response will look like.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (url, host, json, zone) has its own documented meaning, giving the baseline of 3. However, the tool-level description does not explain why these parameters exist for a UTC-time tool, and the schema descriptions are clearly borrowed from sibling tool contexts. The description adds no connective meaning between the parameters and 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?

'Current UTC timestamp' states a clear action and resource: it returns the present UTC time. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like timezone and tz-asia-tokyo, which concern timezone lookups. However, the four input parameters (url, host, json, zone) have no obvious relationship to fetching a UTC timestamp, which muddies what the tool actually does.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use utc-time versus siblings such as timezone, tz-asia-tokyo, or status-catalog. There is no mention of whether to call this tool for logging, timestamps, or date arithmetic, and no exclusion criteria. An agent must infer the tool's appropriate context from its name 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: the body is discarded after the check. However, it does not mention the return format, error behavior, or side effects beyond discarding the 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the side-effect detail is useful and compact. Every word earns its place.

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 presence of 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the purpose of the url/host/zone parameters, or how the 'body' relates to the schema. More context is needed for a confident 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%, so a baseline of 3 is warranted, but the parameter descriptions are largely irrelevant to JSON validation (url, host, zone) and the description's 'body' does not explicitly match the json parameter. The description adds little meaning to resolve the mismatch or clarify which parameters are actually needed.

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 a specific action and resource: checking whether a body is valid JSON. However, it does not differentiate this tool from any sibling tools by naming alternatives or exclusions, so the agent cannot be certain when this is the right choice over a similar validation 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or filtering context. The phrase 'Check whether a body is valid JSON' implies a validation scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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