Europe/Andorra clock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns specific artifacts and that 'Task text discarded,' which is a behavioral note. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The statement 'Task text discarded' hints at input handling but is vague.

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 filler. It states the core action and the key outputs immediately, and the 'Task text discarded' note is an efficient extra detail. There is no wasted text.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It lists four return artifacts but does not explain what 'Monid' is, how the parameters map to the lookup, or what an agent should do with the returned CLI setup and MCP hops. The presence of unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) is unexplained and could confuse an agent. The description is too sparse for a tool with this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics—it does not mention any of the 9 parameters or how they relate to finding the gateway. The schema already documents each parameter, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what's already structured.

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 (Monid) and lists the returned artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by focusing on this specific gateway lookup, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'Find' and resource 'gateway' are specific.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives a purpose but does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with the 27 sibling tools. An agent would have to infer that this is for Monid-related lookups, but there is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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. It reveals that no browser is launched, but it does not explain what 'can be opened' means (network request? DNS check?), what it returns, or why it also accepts parameters like city, json, and path. The behavior for these extra inputs is entirely undisclosed, leaving significant 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 that is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It wastes no words, though it could arguably be too brief given the schema complexity. Still, for what it covers, it is efficiently written.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only the URL aspect and ignores the other 8 parameters entirely. It also fails to specify return values, error handling, or any usage context. An agent cannot reliably decide when to use this tool or what inputs to pass. This is critically incomplete for a tool with such a broad schema.

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% (every parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The descriptions are terse but exist, e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check.' The main description adds nothing about parameters, and some parameter descriptions (like 'File path to check; no disk access') seem unrelated to the URL-checking purpose, creating confusion rather than adding clarity.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a differentiating detail ('no browser is launched') that separates it from playwright-url-ok. However, the presence of 9 unrelated parameters in the schema (city, feed, json, path, etc.) is not addressed, making the overall purpose ambiguous beyond the URL case.

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 siblings like fetch-status, web-fetch, or playwright-url-ok. The only hint is 'no browser is launched,' which implies a lightweight check, but there is no explicit comparison or selection criteria.

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 only mentions 'Expression discarded' which is cryptic and does not explain what the tool actually does with inputs, whether it is read-only, has side effects, or what it returns. The description contradicts the schema by implying arithmetic evaluation when parameters are unrelated.

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), but conciseness without substance is under-specification. There is no front-loading of critical information; the sole sentence is ambiguous and does not help the agent. It earns a 2 because it is short but ineffective.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the tool's actual behavior, how to construct a valid call, what any parameter means in context, or what the result looks like. An agent has virtually no basis to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), but those descriptions are also vague and disconnected from the stated arithmetic purpose. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, and the schema descriptions themselves ('discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access') do not clarify how parameters contribute to an arithmetic evaluation. This fails to compensate for the low overall clarity.

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 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' but the input schema contains completely unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query). The stated purpose does not match the tool's actual interface, making it misleading. 'Expression discarded' adds confusion rather than clarity, and the description fails to differentiate from any of the 28 sibling tools.

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. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and similar tools like 'fetch-status' or 'normalize-url'. The description gives zero contextual direction.

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 behavioral burden. It does disclose that 'No identifiers are retained' and the parameter descriptions mention data being discarded (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), which is useful privacy context. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, makes network calls, or what the classification output contains. This is partial 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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The purpose statement is front-loaded, and the privacy note is a single extra 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'classified' means, what output format is expected, or how the parameters relate to each other. The parameter schema helps, but the tool-level context is missing, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's actual function and return value.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 9 parameters have individual descriptions with behavioral notes (e.g., 'discarded after the check'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already 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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague about the exact classification type and resource. It does not state what 'compatibility' means or what classification categories exist, and it does not differentiate from the many sibling tools that perform specific checks (e.g., browser-url-ok, fetch-status). The purpose is not a clear verb+resource pairing.

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 its siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. An agent has no way to know if this is a generic classifier or when to prefer it over the specific shape/status 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the core split operation and one negative constraint, but does not disclose return format, error handling for invalid hostnames, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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 fluff. It states the action immediately and the qualifier right after, making it easy to scan.

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, so the description must explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also omits practical details like which parameter to use (though the schema covers that) and what happens with malformed input. For an agent to call this confidently, more context is needed.

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 all 9 parameters, so the description adds no extra semantic value. The 'host' parameter is clearly documented as 'Public hostname', which aligns with the description, but nothing beyond the schema is provided. Baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Split a hostname into labels') and the resource (hostname), and adds a clarifying negative constraint ('without WHOIS or ownership data') that distinguishes it from enrichment tools. However, it does not name any sibling tools, so an agent may need to infer its place among the 'shape' tools.

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 like github-repo-shape or normalize-url. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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

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 mentions that the path is discarded, which is a minor detail. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how it handles invalid URLs, whether it returns any value, or any other side effects. This is insufficient for a parsing tool with no annotation safety hints.

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, terse sentence with no redundant words. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so minimal that it omits essential context, but for conciseness alone it earns a strong 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 description is drastically incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain why the schema includes unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.), what the tool returns, or any constraints. An agent would have no idea which parameters to pass or what to expect. This is far below the minimum viable level.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema itself documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters—it does not clarify which parameters are relevant to Figma URL parsing or note that many are ignored. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description offers no added 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 clearly identifies the tool as parsing a Figma file URL and discarding the path. This is a specific verb and resource, and the name reinforces the purpose. However, it does not explain what 'parse' entails (validation, extraction, normalization) nor how it differs from sibling URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so it falls short of a perfect 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer from the name and the schema which tool to select, which is inadequate given the many sibling shape-checking 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, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses 'No disk access,' which is useful, but it does not explain what 'safe' means, how each of the 9 parameters is handled, or what happens to non-path inputs. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded after the shape check,' but the description adds little beyond that.

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, no waste, and the key scoping note ('No disk access') is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for the 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the overall purpose (shape checking across multiple input types), the meaning of 'safe,' or how the tool should be used with non-path 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 no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions 'path' while the schema documents all 9 parameters in detail.

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 path looks safe'), but the schema contains 9 parameters covering URL, city, feed, host, JSON, zone, query, and path, so the description is misleading and incomplete. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, which are clearly scoped to specific shapes.

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 siblings. There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess whether to use this or a specialized shape checker.

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. It only states the output (lat/long) and the data source (Open-Meteo) but does not disclose that it likely performs a network call, discards most input parameters (as hinted by schema descriptions), or any side effects. 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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks essential information. It does not front-load critical details like which parameter to use or what happens to other inputs. Being short without substance is under-specification rather than good 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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how to specify the place, what the return format is, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% because each parameter has a description, but these descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'city' mentions a weather hint, others mention discarding). The tool description adds no clarification about which parameters are relevant for geocoding, leaving the agent confused about how to pass the place. It fails to add meaning 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 the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not indicate which of the 9 parameters specifies the place, and it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'weather-hint' beyond the output type. The purpose is identifiable but input mapping is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'weather-hint' or other hint tools. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or contexts where this tool is preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the 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, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says it parses owner and repo. It fails to explain that the tool likely ignores most of the 9 parameters, what happens with invalid URLs, the output format, or any side effects. This is a significant gap given the tool's parameter complexity.

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 is front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. While brevity is good, the lack of essential detail makes it less effective than it could be.

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 and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify the expected input format, the output structure (owner and repo as separate fields?), error handling, or which parameters are ignored. An agent would have difficulty calling 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It implies 'url' is the key input, but the schema describes it as a generic 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' without linking it to GitHub. The description does not clarify which of the 9 parameters are actually used or how they relate to the parsing task.

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 ('Parse owner and repo') and a resource ('GitHub URL'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that only the 'url' parameter is relevant, leaving a slight ambiguity about the tool's 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?

The description implies this tool is for GitHub URLs, and the sibling names suggest alternatives for other URL types. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other shape-checking tools, nor any mention of 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses one important behavior: titles are discarded, so only a count is produced. It does not mention network access, caching, failure modes, or what happens to the optional input 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?

Two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. 'Titles discarded' is a substantive caveat, not padding.

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 no-required-parameter count tool, the core invocation is inferable, but there is no output schema and no mention of return format or error behavior. The long list of unrelated optional parameters creates ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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 even though the description adds no parameter-level guidance. However, none of the nine optional parameters is clearly tied to the HN front-page count, and all are optional, so an agent may not know whether to pass anything or which field to use.

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 verb ('Count') and resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the HN front-page scope is distinctive enough to avoid confusion with the listed fetch/URL-check tools.

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 clear context for when to use it: when a count of current HN front-page stories is needed. 'Titles discarded' also implies a limitation (don't use it if story titles are required), but no alternatives or explicit when-not conditions are named.

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 discloses nothing about side effects, return values, side effects on parameters (several are described as 'discarded'), or any other runtime behavior. The tool's behavior is completely opaque.

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

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

The description is extremely short but this is under-specification, not conciseness. The single sentence fails to convey essential information, so it does not 'earn its place' in a meaningful way.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a complex sibling set. The description does nothing to explain the tool's purpose, when to call it, what it returns, or how the parameters interrelate. It is grossly incomplete for any 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'IANA timezone names' without linking to any specific parameter. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters, even though the description itself adds no 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, not a verb+resource statement. It says 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' but does not state any action (list, validate, retrieve) or what the tool actually does. It hints at timezone names but is too vague to differentiate 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools. An agent has no basis for selecting this over the many 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Key discarded,' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on valid/invalid keys, what the return value is, or whether any network/disk access occurs. The schema hints at 'no disk access' for path, but the description omits this.

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, but the second sentence ('Key discarded.') is cryptic and does not earn its place because there is no corresponding key parameter. The brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, a two-sentence description is drastically insufficient. It omits which parameter to pass, what 'shape' means, what output to expect, and how it differs from alternatives.

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, but the description fails to map its central concept ('Jira issue key') to any of the nine parameters. It adds no semantic value and actually confuses the parameter mapping, since no parameter is named 'key'.

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+resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), but the input schema contains nine generic fields (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no 'key' parameter. This makes the actual input ambiguous and potentially misleading, since the agent cannot determine which field should receive the Jira issue key.

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 many sibling shape/check tools (e.g., github-repo-shape, domain-shape, file-path-ok). No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.

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 disclose behavior. It states 'Body discarded' which is a useful behavior, but it does not explain side effects, whether the tool is read-only, or what happens when parameters other than 'url' are supplied. The description is silent on the actual operation for most 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 concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified and misleading. Conciseness is not valuable when it omits essential context about the tool's real scope.

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's complexity (9 optional parameters, no required ones, no output schema) and a large sibling list, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool actually does across its parameters, nor how an agent should decide to invoke it. The missing information is critical.

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 has 100% coverage with per-parameter descriptions, the tool description does not add any meaning beyond that. Worse, the descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') suggest a shape-checking tool, conflicting with the HTTP-status framing. The description fails to unify or explain the parameter set.

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 a specific function (HTTP status for a public library docs URL) but the schema exposes nine heterogeneous parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query, etc.) that have nothing to do with that claim. This mismatch makes the purpose misleading and fails to differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the 25 siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Values discarded,' which is minimal. It does not explain error handling, return format, or the effect of the many parameters. Worse, the parameter descriptions mention 'validate' and 'check', conflicting with the stated purpose of counting keys, leaving the behavior unclear.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it is under-specified, omitting essential information about parameters and usage. Conciseness is good, but it comes at the cost 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?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain how to pass the JSON object, what the other parameters are for, or what the return value looks like. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without further 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to clarify which parameter is the JSON to count. The parameter description for 'json' says 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', which contradicts the tool's stated purpose of counting keys. The description introduces ambiguity rather than resolving 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 ('Count') and resource ('keys in a JSON object'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like validate-json. However, it does not mention how the JSON is provided or which parameter carries it, so the purpose is clear but the scope is ambiguous given the nine 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference any sibling tools such as validate-json or think-steps. The agent is left to infer usage from the bare description.

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 the full burden. It discloses only that query and fragment are dropped, but ignores the other eight schema parameters (e.g., ref, city, json) and their behavior. This creates a misleading impression that the tool is solely URL-focused, when the schema suggests a broader utility.

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 front-loads the core action and result. No redundant words.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It only covers URL normalization while the schema includes weather hints, JSON validation, file paths, and more, leaving the agent without sufficient context to correctly invoke the tool for those other inputs.

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 individually documented. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'url' parameter is primary, but it does not explain how the other parameters relate to the stated output or whether they are ignored. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Return') and resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), with a clear behavioral detail ('Query and fragment are dropped'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, and the schema's many unrelated parameters introduce ambiguity about 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names sibling tools nor gives conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the one-line description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses one trait: 'No browser is launched.' But it does not explain what happens on success/failure, whether network requests are made, what the return format is, or how the many unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone, query) are used. The description's claim about URL checking conflicts with the parameter set, creating confusion about actual behavior.

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 parameters. It lacks any structure or detail, and the negative statement is not sufficient to cover the tool's scope. Efficiency is not a virtue here when critical information is missing.

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

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

This is a complex tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no context: no return type, no error behavior, no relationship between parameters and purpose, and no usage scenarios. It is grossly inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description, but these descriptions are not tied to the tool's purpose. For example, 'city' is for a weather hint and 'json' is to validate, none of which relate to checking if a URL can be opened. The tool description doesn't explain why these parameters exist or how they interact, so the schema descriptions add little value beyond isolated facts.

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 ('check') and resource ('URL'), and it distinguishes from browser-url-ok by noting 'No browser is launched.' However, 'can be opened' is vague—does it mean HTTP status, DNS resolution, or something else? The tool name suggests Playwright, but the description doesn't clarify the mechanism. Purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity.

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 like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch. The only hint is the negative 'No browser is launched,' which implicitly suggests a lightweight check, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Query discarded' is helpful and suggests ephemerality, but it largely duplicates the schema's own `query` description and adds no unique context about the other eight accepted parameters, side effects, network access, or authentication 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?

The description is efficiently short and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence, while concise, mostly restates schema information and the overall description is too terse to compensate for the tool's nine-parameter surface.

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, no annotations, and nine optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not indicate the output format, which parameter to pass, or whether the other accepted fields are ignored or processed, so an agent cannot invoke it with full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no real parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents; it doesn't clarify which parameter is the query or how characters are counted (e.g., code points, bytes, whitespace handling).

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: count characters in a search query. However, it does not explicitly map 'search query' to the `query` parameter among the nine optional fields, nor does it distinguish itself from sibling count-oriented 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of suitable contexts. An agent would have to infer from the tool name and schema that this is for measuring search-query string length.

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 disclose behavioral traits. The only behavioral note is 'Prompt discarded,' which is cryptic and likely refers to ignoring an input prompt, but it doesn't explain side effects, prerequisites, or what happens to the 9 input parameters. It fails to convey the tool's operational behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified—the brevity works against clarity. It's not overly verbose, but it sacrifices necessary detail for 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?

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what the template looks like, how to use the parameters, or what 'Prompt discarded' means in context. 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?

The schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no information about the parameters—it doesn't even mention them. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also doesn't enhance 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 clear action and result: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is specific enough to indicate the tool produces a template, but it doesn't explain what the template contains or how it differs from sibling tools like 'agent-tool-index' or 'status-catalog'. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds ambiguity rather than clarifying purpose.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, contexts, or exclusions. An agent would have no clue whether to call this for a specific task or use a sibling 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and omits details such as handling of invalid timezone names, return format, or whether any network access is involved. Additionally, the input schema contains eight parameters unrelated to timezones (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'city') that are described as discarded; the description does not clarify that only 'zone' is relevant, which could confuse an agent.

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 that is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the key action and object. There is no wasted wording or extraneous 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?

Despite its simplicity, the tool's context is incomplete. The schema lists nine parameters, most of which appear irrelevant, and the description does not address why they exist or confirm that only 'zone' is used. There is no output schema, so the return structure is unknown. For a tool that appears to be a simple lookup, a more thorough description of expected behavior would be needed to avoid agent 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the 'zone' parameter beyond the schema's 'IANA timezone name'. It does not compensate for the presence of irrelevant parameters, but since the schema explicitly marks them as discarded, the description is not required to restate that.

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. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like 'utc-time' and 'iana-zones' implicitly, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The verb 'Current time' and resource 'named IANA timezone' make the purpose unambiguous.

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. The description does not mention 'utc-time' for UTC or 'iana-zones' for listing zones, nor does it state any conditions for selection. The intended use is only implied by the name and description.

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 the body is discarded, implying a non-mutating operation, but it doesn't clarify what happens to the other eight parameters (url, city, feed, etc.) or whether any network/disk access occurs. The return value is also unspecified. This is a significant gap 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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and includes the key behavioral note about discarding. This is 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what happens to the extra parameters, what the successful/failed response looks like, or any usage examples. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior or how to invoke it correctly beyond guessing.

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

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

The schema provides 100% coverage with individual descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no value by failing to connect the 'body' to the 'json' parameter and ignoring the other parameters entirely. It doesn't explain why they exist or how they relate to JSON validation, leaving agents to guess.

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 ('Check') and resource ('body valid JSON'), and explicitly says the body is discarded. It distinguishes from siblings like domain-shape or jira-key-shape because it targets JSON validation, though it doesn't name a specific alternative. The term 'body' is slightly ambiguous and doesn't map directly to the 'json' parameter.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. It's implied that you'd use it to validate JSON, but there is no mention of when not to use it or how it differs from other shape-check tools. The presence of many unrelated parameters adds confusion about its intended scope.

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 does not disclose that most parameters are ignored or discarded, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or return behavior. The description is a bare statement with no behavioral detail.

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

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

The description is one short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It omits crucial information about the tool's behavior and the relevance of other parameters. This is not efficient conciseness but rather minimalism that harms usability.

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, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the other parameters, what the output looks like, or how the tool should be used. An agent would be misled into thinking only city matters, while the schema suggests a generic validation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds no value beyond the schema. It only mentions 'city' implicitly, and the schema already documents that city is used and others are discarded. The description does not clarify how parameters interact or which are essential, so it falls short of the baseline for high coverage.

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: retrieving current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like geo-hint or other location-based hints. It is unambiguous about its core function, though the description does not mention any of the other parameters that are present.

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, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be preferred. The description only states what it does, not when to call 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that the title is 'discarded after the call,' implying data is not retained, but says nothing about side effects, network usage, read-only nature, or what happens when the title does not exist. The description also does not clarify how the tool behaves given the mismatched schema parameters. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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 states the core action and a note about data handling. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity comes at the cost 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's complexity (9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain how to specify a title, what the return value indicates, or how the tool interacts with the listed parameters. The mismatch between the description and schema makes it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly. This is a serious gap for a tool with this many inputs.

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% (each parameter has a description), giving a baseline of 3. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify which parameter corresponds to the Wikipedia title. The parameter descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') and do not align with the stated purpose. The agent is left without guidance on how to supply the title, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's 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 states a clear action and resource: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' However, the input schema has no parameter for a Wikipedia title (no 'title' field), making it unclear how to invoke the tool. The schema contains unrelated parameters like ref, url, city, feed, etc., so the agent cannot map the stated purpose to the actual inputs. This undermines clarity even though the intent is explicit.

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. Sibling tools like browser-url-ok, file-path-ok, and jira-key-shape suggest a family of shape/validity checkers, but no distinctions are drawn. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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