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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'input discarded', which is vague and partially contradicted by the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ref' is 'discarded after the shape check', 'query' is 'discarded after the length check'), implying the tool does perform checks before discarding. The description gives no information about side effects, errors, return values, or side effects, and it even implies a yEnc focus that is absent from the schema—a significant 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 extremely short (five words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure, front-loading of key information, and fails to convey the tool's purpose. In contrast to a concise, information-dense summary, this is a terse, ambiguous fragment that wastes the opportunity to provide 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description offers almost no context about its behavior. It doesn't clarify whether it returns an 'ok' status, what valid shapes are, how it handles various inputs, or when to use it. Given the complexity (many unrelated params) and the lack of any structured safety or output hints, the description is grossly inadequate.

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 that states its role and discard behavior (e.g., 'json': 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description's generic 'input discarded' does not enhance or contradict the schema's per-parameter semantics, and it fails to compensate for any lack of coverage (none exists).

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 'yEnc header shape, input discarded' is a vague fragment that fails to state a clear verb and resource. The name 'yenc-ok' hints at a validation, but the description doesn't explain what the tool does; the parameters are entirely unrelated to yEnc (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query), making the purpose misleading. It neither restates the name nor provides a functional statement, so it qualifies as minimal and confusing.

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 its 29 siblings (e.g., browser-url-ok, file-path-ok, validate-json). The description contains no context for selection, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent would have no basis to choose 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.