Europe/Sofia clock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'Task text discarded' for some inputs, which is a useful behavioral note, but it does not clarify whether the tool makes external calls, has side effects, or what happens to the gateway result. This is minimal transparency for a tool that likely accesses external resources.

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 front-loads the core purpose and lists the outputs. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly clearer about the intended usage 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?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain how to invoke the tool and what to expect. It only says it finds a gateway and returns four items, but does not clarify which parameters are relevant, how to pass them, or the format of the response. An agent would struggle to know what inputs to provide.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3. It does not mention how parameters like 'url' or 'query' are used in the gateway lookup.

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

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

The description states a specific verb 'Find' and a resource 'public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)', and lists what it returns. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all URL/shape/status checks. However, 'Monid' is not explained, leaving some ambiguity about the exact nature of the gateway.

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 when to use it (when you need a pay-per-call gateway) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The phrase 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway' gives some context, but no exclusions or alternative tool names 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. It discloses 'No browser is launched' but does not explain whether network requests are made, what happens to the inputs (some are 'discarded'), or the criteria for 'can be opened.' This is minimal and leaves 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 short (two sentences) but under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structure or additional detail that would help an agent, and the brevity results in ambiguity rather than efficiency.

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, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the expected input format, the meaning of 'can be opened,' the output, or any side effects. An agent cannot reliably decide when or how to invoke it.

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 context linking these parameters to the URL-check purpose. The parameter descriptions themselves (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call') appear unrelated to URL checking, and the description does not reconcile this mismatch.

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 verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened') but is vague about what 'can be opened' means—syntactic validation, network reachability, or both. The 9 parameters (ref, city, json, path, zone, etc.) are unrelated to URL checking, making the described purpose misleading and unclear.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like normalize-url, fetch-status, or playwright-url-ok. The only hint is 'No browser is launched,' but no alternative or selection criteria is 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that page content is not stored, which is a useful privacy note, but it says nothing about how the many other parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) are handled, including that several are discarded or used for checks. There is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving significant opacity.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds one behavioral note. There is no waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It explains the return value for a URL but does not explain the purpose or handling of the other eight parameters, nor the return format, error cases, or any edge conditions. The agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based on the description alone, especially given the apparent mismatch between the description and the 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%, so each parameter already has a textual description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level information beyond mentioning 'URL', which is a subset of the schema. Since the schema already documents all parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description does not clarify how the URL parameter interacts with the others.

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 verb+resource: returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, which likely perform similar URL checks. The tool name 'citation' and the presence of many unrelated schema fields further cloud the intended 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the output description 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool splits hostnames and discards WHOIS/ownership data, but it says nothing about how the other 8 parameters behave (e.g., are they validated, discarded, or used?). The description gives no indication of side effects, permissions, or error handling, making behavior opaque for the broader 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?

A single, tightly worded sentence with the core action and a key exclusion. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 severely incomplete. It only explains one use case (hostname splitting) and leaves the purpose of the other parameters unexplained, nor does it mention return values or error behavior. An agent would not know how to correctly invoke this tool for inputs other than hostnames.

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 all 9 parameters are already described individually. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the hostname example; it does not explain how parameters like 'city' or 'json' relate to the stated purpose. Given high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to compensate for any ambiguities.

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 hostname into labels) and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, which differentiates it from some siblings. However, the input schema includes 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) that are unrelated to hostname splitting, so the description only covers a fraction of the tool's apparent scope, leaving agents uncertain about the full 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 versus alternatives like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or figma-url-shape. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, 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. It discloses that the tool performs a HEAD request and returns only status, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what happens with the other nine parameters (some are marked as 'discarded' in the schema, but the description does not say that). The mismatch between the stated purpose and the schema is a transparency 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 a single sentence with no fluff, so it is concise in length. However, it is so terse that it omits critical information about the tool's actual scope (nine parameters), making it under-specification rather than effective brevity. A 3 is fair because it is not wordy but it is not appropriately informative.

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. The description provides no explanation of what 'status' means, what the return value is, or how the many parameters are used. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke this tool correctly for anything other than a trivial URL HEAD request.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents each parameter, but the description adds no meaning beyond that. Worse, it creates confusion: it says 'HEAD a public URL' while the schema's url parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', not as a target for a HEAD request. The description does not clarify which parameter is the primary input or how the others relate to the action.

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 (HEAD a public URL) and a result (return status only), which is clear for that one scenario. However, the input schema exposes nine optional parameters (city, zone, json, etc.) that have nothing to do with HEADing a URL, suggesting the tool actually serves a broader 'status check' purpose. It also does not differentiate from sibling URL checkers like browser-url-ok or playwright-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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions sibling tools, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this over other status/URL checkers. The presence of many unrelated parameters further obscures intended usage.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the path is discarded, but does not state what the tool returns, whether it validates, what errors may occur, or any side effects. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is grossly insufficient.

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

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

The description is very concise, with two short sentences and no redundant phrasing. The main action is front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it an under-specification rather than a model of 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to construct the expected input, or why many parameters (city, feed, host, json, etc.) are present. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly with only 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. More critically, the schema's description of the 'url' parameter ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') conflicts with the tool's purpose of parsing a Figma file URL, creating semantic confusion. The tool description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they interact with the Figma URL parsing.

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 ('Parse') and a resource ('a Figma file URL'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not explain what 'parse' yields (e.g., file key, validation result) and does not differentiate it from sibling URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, leaving ambiguity about its exact role.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many siblings such as domain-shape, github-repo-shape, and normalize-url, the description provides no selection criteria or context for choosing 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says it fetches and returns counts, but does not disclose that many parameters are discarded after a shape check (as noted in the schema), whether authentication is needed, rate limits, or what happens on missing/blocked robots.txt files.

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 is too terse to be helpful given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core action but omits essential context, so it is not a well-structured description.

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 incomplete. It does not explain how parameters map to the operation, what 'group counts' means, or what the expected return structure is, leaving an agent unable to call the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter meaning and fails to connect any of the 9 parameters to the robots.txt fetch. An agent cannot infer which parameter is the URL or how the others affect the call, so the description does not compensate for the schema's generic nature.

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 ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and an output ('group counts only'), which is clear in isolation. However, the 9-parameter schema is generic and unrelated (city, zone, query, etc.), so an agent cannot tell which parameter carries the robots.txt URL, making the purpose ambiguous in practice.

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 web-fetch, fetch-status, or browser-url-ok. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or how this tool differs from siblings that also fetch URLs.

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?

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states 'Key discarded' but there is no key parameter, and it does not clarify what happens to the other inputs (e.g., url, city, feed). Parameter descriptions hint at discarding for some (ref, json, query) but not for others (url, host, zone). The description fails to disclose the tool's actual behavior, such as whether it validates all inputs, returns a boolean, or has 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 a single sentence, which is superficially concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured; it omits critical information and fails to front-load the most relevant details about the Jira key shape check. The one sentence does not earn its place because it creates more ambiguity than clarity.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns, whether it validates all parameters or only a specific one, what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, or how the diverse parameters (city, zone, json) relate to the core function. An agent cannot reliably use this tool 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% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no value beyond the schema; it does not explain the relationship between the Jira key check and the diverse parameters. The schema descriptions themselves are inconsistent (some say 'discarded', others don't), and the tool description does not clarify this. The description's mention of 'Key discarded' is misleading since no key parameter exists, failing to enhance parameter 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: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like domain-shape and github-repo-shape. However, the input schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, etc.) and no 'key' parameter, creating confusion about how the tool actually operates. The purpose is stated but not consistently supported by the schema.

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 many sibling tools for shape checks (domain-shape, github-repo-shape, figma-url-shape), but the description does not mention any of them or specify conditions for selection. The agent is left to infer usage context, which is insufficient given the ambiguous schema.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Values discarded,' which hints at non-persistence but does not address side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the return format. For a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, this is severely lacking.

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), which is positive, but it is too sparse to be useful. It lacks structure or prioritization of key information, and the single sentence does not earn its place by providing actionable details—it merely restates the obvious.

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, all optional, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no contextual information: it does not explain what the output looks like, when to use this tool, how the parameters relate to the JSON object, or any operational constraints. This is completely inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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

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

The schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but the tool description does not connect these parameters to the stated purpose of counting keys. The parameter descriptions mention 'shape check' and 'discarded,' which do not align with 'Count keys in a JSON object,' leaving the agent unable to understand how to use the parameters meaningfully. The description adds no extra semantic value 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 a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('keys in a JSON object'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling shape-check tools like validate-json or domain-shape, and the tool's nine parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) are not explained in relation to counting keys, creating confusion about what the tool actually operates on.

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 preferred scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like validate-json or web-fetch. The description is a single sentence with no usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'No browser is launched,' but does not reveal what the tool actually does (e.g., network request, validation, side effects). The parameter descriptions mention 'discarded' and 'no disk access,' but these are inconsistent with the stated URL-checking purpose, making behavior 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 sentence and concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and essential details, and it does not front-load information about the tool's scope or behavior. The brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs are needed, what the return value looks like, or how to interpret results. The description does not cover the full scope of the tool's capabilities, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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

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

The schema provides 100% coverage with terse descriptions, but the tool description does not reconcile these with its stated purpose. For example, the 'url' parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' in the schema, while the tool says 'check if can be opened' – a mismatch. The description adds no clarity on how the nine parameters are used or which are relevant for the stated check.

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 verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened') but does not clarify what 'opened' means (HTTP status, format, etc.) and the schema lists nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone) that contradict the narrow purpose. The name implies Playwright but says no browser is launched, creating ambiguity about the actual check.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status'. There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, leaving an agent unable to choose between them.

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 'Short catalog' without explaining what it does with the inputs, what it returns, or any side effects. The parameter descriptions hint at checks (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), but the tool's overall behavior remains 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 only one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no structure, front-loading of key facts, or elaboration that would help an agent decide to use it. The brevity comes at the cost of essential information.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description is a single vague phrase. It does not explain what the tool does with the parameters, what a successful call looks like, or any behavioral context. It is grossly incomplete for a tool of 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 each parameter has a clear description. The tool description itself adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high coverage. However, it does not tie the parameters to the stated 'catalog' 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 says 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' but does not state a clear verb or resource. It is a noun phrase, and the 9 unrelated input parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) make the actual operation unclear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or domain-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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when it is appropriate or when another sibling (e.g., fetch-status) would be better. The description offers zero contextual routing.

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 disclosure burden and does disclose the most important behavior: the prompt is discarded. The schema descriptions reinforce that all parameters are discarded, so an agent understands inputs are ignored. It does not detail side effects or return format, but 'discarded' strongly implies a read-only, input-ignoring operation.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. 'Prompt discarded' earns its place as critical behavioral 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 optional, discarded parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and that the prompt is ignored. It could explicitly say that no arguments are needed or describe the template's contents, but the schema already makes optionality clear.

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 detail beyond 'Prompt discarded,' which is already reflected in the schema. Since all parameters are optional and marked as discarded, no additional semantics are needed.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('a three-step thinking template'), so the tool's function is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the purpose is 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?

The purpose implies use whenever a three-step thinking template is needed, and 'Prompt discarded' signals that prompt content will not be processed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives.

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, and the description is extremely brief. It does not disclose that only the 'zone' parameter is relevant, that other parameters are discarded, or any side effects, permissions, or return format. The agent gets no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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

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

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to incompleteness rather than being a conciseness flaw.

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, no required ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not specify which parameter to use, what the return value looks like, or that other parameters are ignored, leaving the agent unable to correctly invoke the 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?

The schema has 9 parameters with full coverage, but the description does not mention any parameter or clarify which one matters. The schema itself contains many irrelevant fields (ref, url, city, etc.) with 'discarded' notes, making it misleading. The description fails to compensate for this confusion, so it adds no value 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 clearly states the tool's function: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones, though it does not explicitly name them.

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. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives such as utc-time for UTC or iana-zones for listing zones.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output and says nothing about side effects, parameter handling, read-only status, or whether network access is required. Many parameters are described in the schema as 'discarded after the shape check,' but this behavior is not reflected in the tool description.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no extraneous information, making it highly 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?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It explains only the time-returning function and leaves all other parameter behaviors and potential side effects unexplained. The generic parameter descriptions in the schema do not compensate for the lack of tool-level context, making the definition inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning or guidance about which parameters are relevant. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description does not help map parameters to the tool's purpose, such as indicating that 'zone' might override the fixed timezone.

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

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

The description states a specific resource (Europe/Sofia) and the action (return current local time). It is clear and distinct from likely siblings like utc-time and timezone, though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time, timezone, or iana-zones. The description offers no selection criteria, no exclusions, and no mention of the other tools in the sibling list.

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 reveal that the body is discarded, which is useful, but it omits other important behaviors like redirect handling, timeout limits, authentication needs, or the exact response format. The sparse disclosure is insufficient for a network 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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no annotations, so the brevity is not 'appropriate' – it sacrifices necessary information for the sake of economy.

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 complex tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format beyond 'HTTP status and content type', nor does it clarify the purpose of the non-URL parameters, leaving agents without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

While schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the tool description adds no clarity about how the nine heterogeneous parameters relate to the stated purpose. Parameters like 'city', 'zone', and 'query' seem unrelated to fetching a URL, and the description does not explain their role or that only 'url' is relevant. The schema descriptions themselves are cryptic, and the tool description fails to compensate.

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 (fetch a public URL) and the specific outputs (HTTP status and content type), with a behavioral note that the body is discarded. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which likely serve similar purposes, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria, 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.