Europe/Helsinki clock

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that 'Task text discarded' and lists returned items, but it does not state whether network calls are made, authentication is needed, or any side effects occur. The operation appears read-only but is not explicitly confirmed.

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 mostly front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the second sentence is cryptic and potentially misleading ('Task text discarded') without a corresponding parameter, making the structure less helpful 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?

The tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain how parameters relate to the returned items or what the return format looks like. It is incomplete for an agent to reliably decide when to call it and what 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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has its own description, the tool description adds no connection between these parameters and the stated purpose. The phrase 'Task text discarded' is confusing because there is no 'task' parameter in the schema, and the description fails to clarify which of the nine optional parameters actually influences the result.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)') and lists return types, giving a basic sense of purpose. However, 'Monid' is undefined, and the tool's connection to its nine input parameters is not explained, nor is it clearly differentiated from siblings like web-fetch or citation.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the single phrase 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway'.

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 adds a useful privacy trait ('No identifiers are retained') but never states what the tool does with inputs, what the classification output looks like, or any side effects. The disclosure is meaningful but incomplete.

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 the privacy note is well front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a 9-parameter tool with a vague purpose, two sentences are not 'appropriately sized' – the core claim is too thin to earn 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 heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what classification is produced, which inputs are relevant, or what the response contains, making a correct call effectively impossible.

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 and the schema already documents each of the 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, notably failing to explain how disparate params (Git ref, URL, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) relate to 'classification.' It stays at baseline because coverage is high.

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: it never states what 'classified' means, what resource is acted on, or what the output is. The name 'compatibility' implies checking compatibility, but the description talks about classification without connecting the two, and it doesn't differentiate this from 27 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With 27 siblings such as validate-json, domain-shape, file-path-ok, and normalize-url, an agent has no way to know this tool's niche or how to pick it over the others.

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

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

The only behavioral disclosure is that it avoids WHOIS/ownership lookups, which is useful but minor. With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, yet it omits what happens to the other eight parameters, whether there are side effects, or what the output format is. The parameter descriptions hint at discarding data, but the tool description does not.

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 nine parameters. It front-loads the hostname action but does not earn its place by explaining the tool's actual breadth, making it more terse than useful.

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

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

The tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers hostname splitting. It fails to explain how the other parameters fit, what the tool returns, or how the tool behaves across inputs. This is severely incomplete for a multi-purpose shape checker.

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 already has 100% coverage with each parameter documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions, and it does not help map the unrelated parameters to the stated hostname-splitting purpose.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('split a hostname into labels') and a constraint ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which is clear for that single use case. However, the input schema accepts nine unrelated parameters (url, city, feed, json, path, zone, query, ref), so the description does not reflect the tool's full scope and could mislead an agent into thinking it only handles hostnames.

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 many siblings (e.g., figma-url-shape, github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape) or when not to use it. The description gives no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer the intended use from the schema 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 mentions the Open-Meteo source but does not describe side effects (external API call), rate limits, or what happens with the other parameters. The schema notes that many parameters are 'discarded,' but that information lives in the schema, not the description, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the core function.

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 fluff, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it less helpful 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify which parameter to use, what the output looks like, or any constraints (e.g., only city names supported). An agent cannot reliably 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter has a description, setting a baseline of 3. The tool description adds no value beyond the schema—it does not clarify which parameter represents the 'place' or how the parameters relate. This is a missed opportunity given the high parameter count.

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: returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. However, it does not specify which of the 9 input parameters identifies the place, creating ambiguity. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like weather-hint, which may also return coordinates.

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 weather-hint or iana-zones. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it clarify which parameter should be provided (e.g., city vs. query). The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'for a place.'

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 burden. It discloses only that titles are discarded, but remains silent on whether it makes network calls, what it returns (beyond a count), side effects, or the role of its nine parameters. This is insufficient for a tool with such an opaque input set.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose. However, it is overly terse given the tool's complexity; while it contains no fluff, it omits critical information that conciseness alone cannot justify.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the parameters do, what the return value looks like, or how to interpret the 'titles discarded' behavior in context. An agent would have no idea how to call it correctly.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover each parameter, but they appear unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., Git ref, city, JSON). The tool description adds nothing to clarify how these parameters affect the count. Baseline for 100% schema coverage is 3, but the mismatch between the schema's parameters and the tool's stated function makes the description unhelpful, dropping it to 2.

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, specific action: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' It names the resource (Hacker News front-page) and the operation (count), and the note 'Titles discarded' adds a behavioral nuance. It is easily distinguished from all sibling tools, which focus on URL, file, or validation checks.

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 are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Key discarded', implying no persistence, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or if any side effects occur. The multiple 'discarded' notes in schema descriptions hint at safety, but the tool-level description is silent on these aspects.

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 brief (two short sentences), but this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not front-load critical information like the expected input format or output, and it wastes no words but also provides no value.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a complex domain (Jira key shape validation), the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what constitutes a valid Jira key, how the check is performed, what the return value is, or which parameter to supply. The schema's additionalProperties:false and varied fields further confuse rather than clarify.

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; it does not identify which parameter represents the Jira key or explain how parameters like 'city' or 'feed' relate to the stated purpose. The schema descriptions themselves are generic and fail to clarify usage.

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 includes 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no indication which one is the Jira key. This mismatch makes the actual purpose ambiguous and fails to differentiate from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape.

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 state prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema, which is insufficient given the schema's breadth.

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 behavioral burden. The only disclosed behavior is 'Body discarded,' which applies to the URL case alone. The tool's actual behavior for the other 8 parameter types (city, zone, json, path, query, feed, ref, host) is entirely undisclosed — an agent cannot predict what the tool returns or does for those inputs.

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?

At 9 words the description is technically brief, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. A two-clause sentence cannot serve a tool with 9 heterogeneous optional parameters spanning weather, timezone, JSON, file paths, and feeds. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there are effectively no sentences covering 8 of the tool's 9 input domains.

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

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

This tool has 9 heterogeneous optional parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema — the description is the only guide an agent has. It describes exactly one of roughly nine behaviors and leaves the rest unexplained. This is grossly inadequate for a multi-dispatch tool; an agent cannot safely or correctly invoke it for any case other than a docs URL.

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 adds nothing about the dispatch logic — which parameter drives which check, or how the tool selects among 9 optional heterogeneous inputs. Given that no parameter is required and all 9 cover unrelated domains, the description's silence on the routing behavior is a critical gap that the schema alone cannot fill.

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 ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL') but represents only one of the tool's actual behaviors. The input schema accepts 9 wildly heterogeneous parameters spanning weather (city), timezone (zone), JSON validation (json), file paths (path), feeds (feed), and search text (query), none of which the description mentions. It also fails to distinguish this from sibling HTTP checkers like fetch-status, web-fetch, 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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 9 optional parameters and zero required ones, an agent cannot determine which parameter triggers which check, and nothing routes it toward or away from the many sibling URL/HTTP tools (fetch-status, web-fetch, normalize-url, domain-shape). No exclusions or alternative selection criteria are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what the tool returns, whether it performs network calls, reads files, or has side effects. The only behavioral hints are buried in parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), but the tool description itself reveals nothing.

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 only six words, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It lacks essential information about purpose and usage, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful definition.

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 and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with these parameters, what output to expect, or how it relates to sibling tools. An agent would be unable to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) are diverse and not connected to the catalog of HTTP status codes. The description does not help an agent understand which parameter to provide for a given intent, so it fails to add 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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' is vague and fails to explain how the tool is used or what action an agent should take. It does not differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, and the parameters (URLs, cities, JSON, etc.) are unrelated to the stated purpose, creating confusion.

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 any sibling. No mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions. An agent cannot infer whether this is for looking up status codes, checking URL health, or something else.

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 behavioral burden. It only states 'Prompt discarded,' which hints that inputs are ignored but does not disclose the output format, side effects, or whether this is a safe read operation. This is insufficient for an agent to predict 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 extremely terse, but under-specification is not conciseness. It lacks critical information such as what the template contains or how it should be used. The single sentence does not earn its place because it omits essential context.

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 and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters (beyond schema descriptions), what the returned template looks like, or any side effects. An agent cannot confidently 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%, so each parameter has a description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description itself adds no semantic value beyond the schema, 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is specific enough to understand the tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'calc-eval' or 'fetch-status', so an agent might not know when this is the right choice.

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 only says 'Prompt discarded,' which implies the tool ignores input but does not explain the intended use case or conditions that should trigger its invocation.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp' and fails to mention that the many input parameters appear to be discarded or irrelevant, nor does it describe the output format or side effects.

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

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

The description is very short and free of filler, making it easy to parse. It is under-specified for the tool's apparent complexity, but the conciseness itself is not the problem.

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, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no context. An agent cannot tell which parameters matter, what the return value looks like, or why the schema is so broad.

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. However, the description adds no meaning to the parameters and does not explain why a UTC timestamp tool accepts parameters like URL, city, or JSON text.

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 provides the current UTC timestamp. It lacks a verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone, but the resource and output are 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of timezone or other siblings. No context is given for how this should be selected in a workflow.

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 mentions 'Title discarded after the call,' which is a small data-retention note, but it omits any other behavioral aspects such as network access, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool with this name and purpose, the lack of detail is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It does not front-load any essential usage details, and the brevity works against clarity given the complex, mismatched 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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how to invoke the tool correctly, what inputs are relevant, or what the return value looks like. An agent cannot reasonably use this tool without additional external knowledge.

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

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

The description adds no parameter information whatsoever. Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the schema's parameter descriptions are entirely unrelated to the stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint'). The description does not compensate for this mismatch, leaving all 9 parameters without meaningful guidance.

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: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This provides a specific verb and resource. However, it fails to connect to the actual input schema, which contains parameters like 'ref', 'url', 'city', 'feed', etc., none of which relate to a Wikipedia title. This disconnect makes the purpose ambiguous in practice, as an agent cannot infer how to supply the title.

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 its many siblings (e.g., 'browser-url-ok', 'normalize-url', 'web-fetch'). There are no conditions, alternatives, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting this tool over others.

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