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. 'Add two numbers' implies a simple computation but doesn't address potential issues like integer overflow, error handling, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., sum as integer), error cases, or behavioral nuances. For even a simple tool, more context would improve agent understanding.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description 'Add two numbers' implies the parameters are numbers to be added, which adds basic semantic meaning beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it doesn't specify parameter roles (e.g., which is first/second) or constraints, leaving some 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 'Add two numbers' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (fetch_news_articles, get_weather) since they're unrelated, but the purpose is specific and 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the sibling tools are unrelated, the description offers no usage instructions beyond the basic operation.

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 description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it fetches weather, lacking details like mutability, error conditions, or data freshness.

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?

Single sentence, no waste. Perfectly concise for the function's simplicity.

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?

Adequate for a simple one-parameter tool, but lacks information about return value (no output schema) or any side effects.

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 has 0% description coverage; description implies 'city' parameter is a city name but adds no format or constraints beyond the schema type.

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 'Fetch current weather for a city' clearly states the verb and resource, and distinguishes this weather tool from the many UI automation siblings.

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 or alternatives, but the context implies it should be used for weather queries. No alternatives exist among siblings.

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 effectively describes the authentication requirement (OAuth), first-run behavior (browser window), and prerequisites (credentials.json file). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or what specific data is returned about each space.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the following authentication details could be more efficiently integrated. While all information is relevant, the flow from purpose to authentication setup could be smoother.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of authentication requirements but lacks information about return values, pagination, or error handling. For a list operation with no structured output documentation, more detail about what data is returned would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on authentication requirements which is the correct emphasis for a parameterless tool.

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 specific action ('List all Google Chat spaces') and resource ('Google Chat spaces the bot has access to'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_space_messages' which focuses on messages within spaces rather than listing spaces themselves. The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implicitly suggests usage for listing accessible spaces, there's no mention of when NOT to use it or how it differs from potential sibling tools. The description focuses on authentication setup rather than 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets an IP address but doesn't explain how it works (e.g., via an API call to outian.net), what the response format is, potential rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and reliability.

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 with a single sentence, 'Get IP address from outian.net', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary details, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (simple but with an undocumented parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the parameter affects the result, or any behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for effective use without additional guesswork or documentation.

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 has 1 parameter ('city') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter's purpose (e.g., whether it filters by city or something else) unexplained and potentially confusing for users.

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's purpose as 'Get IP address from outian.net', which includes a verb ('Get') and resource ('IP address'), but is vague about what specific IP address is retrieved (e.g., user's current IP, IP for a city). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'fetch_weather' or 'get_chat_spaces', which are unrelated, but the purpose is clear enough to understand the basic function.

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. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for geolocation, network diagnostics, or other use cases. Without this, users must infer usage from the tool name and parameters 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 effectively describes authentication requirements ('requires OAuth authentication'), input format constraints (space_name format, date format), time range behavior (how start_date and end_date affect the query), and error conditions (raises ValueError). It doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or what happens with large result sets, but covers core operational aspects well.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then covers prerequisites and format details, explains behavioral logic, and concludes with parameter documentation and error handling. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is logically organized for quick comprehension.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description does an excellent job covering authentication, input formats, temporal logic, and errors. However, it doesn't describe the structure of returned message objects (only mentions 'List of message objects'), which would be helpful since there's no output schema. For a read-only listing tool, this is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: space_name (format requirements), start_date (required, format, behavior when used alone), and end_date (optional, format, behavior when combined with start_date). It adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, including format specifications and temporal logic.

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 specific action ('List messages') and resource ('from a specific Google Chat space') with additional scope ('with optional time filtering'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_chat_spaces' (which likely lists spaces rather than messages) and 'add' or 'fetch_weather' (completely different domains).

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for listing messages from a Google Chat space with time filtering) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools. It doesn't compare with other message-fetching tools if they exist, though the sibling list doesn't suggest direct alternatives.

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