Currency USD

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses one meaningful behavior: 'Page content is not stored.' It does not state whether the URL is fetched over the network, how redirects or errors are handled, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations, so the safety profile remains thin.

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

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

Two short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and a valuable disclaimer in second place. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 incomplete relative to the schema: json ('JSON text to validate') and zone ('IANA timezone name') are unexplained by the tool description and the prose describes outputs (host, scheme, status) that only loosely map to the schema properties. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent cannot confidently predict behavior for the non-URL inputs.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'url', 'host', 'json', and 'zone' properties all have descriptive text), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter information and does not explain how the optional fields relate to the described URL behavior.

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

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

The description names a concrete action and output ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') and adds a scope-limiting side-effect note. It does not, however, reconcile this URL-only purpose with the schema's unrelated optional parameters (json, zone), leaving the tool's full purpose ambiguous.

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

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

The intended use is implied: call this when you need a lightweight citation/liveness check for a URL rather than stored page content. There is no explicit when-to-use/exclusion guidance or mention of when the optional json/zone parameters are appropriate.

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 does add the privacy-relevant statement 'No identifiers are retained,' which is useful, but it doesn't disclose whether the tool performs external lookups, modifies state, has rate limits, or returns canned versus live results. The behavioral profile remains largely 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, tightly scoped sentence with no filler. The most critical information—what it shows and the privacy guarantee—is front-loaded and the entire text earns its place.

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

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

This is a classification tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what classification output looks like, how the parameters map to classification dimensions, or when this tool is appropriate compared to its siblings, so the context is incomplete for reliable 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 the schema already documents all four parameters and their expected content. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Show') and a resource ('how this request is classified'), but the classification concept is vague—it doesn't explain what kind of classification or how it relates to the tool name. It also fails to differentiate itself from siblings like citation, domain-shape, status, or validate-json, without which an agent cannot confidently select this tool.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not state prerequisites, alternative conditions, or examples of appropriate requests, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the tool name.

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 description adds a negative behavioral constraint ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which is helpful. However, no annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose that the tool also accepts json and zone inputs, leaving the tool's broader 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It loses the top score because it omits the other accepted inputs, making it concise but only partially 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?

With four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers only a slice of what an agent needs. It doesn't explain the output format, the purpose of the json/zone parameters, or whether url is a valid input for splitting.

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 each parameter. The description does not explicitly tie 'hostname' to the 'host' parameter or clarify how url, json, and zone relate to the stated purpose, but it doesn't need to add much beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Split a hostname into labels') and differentiates from WHOIS/ownership tools. However, it is incomplete because the schema includes url, json, and zone parameters that are not mentioned, so the stated purpose does not cover the actual tool scope.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a use case (splitting hostnames) but offers no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations exist, and the description reveals no behavior beyond naming a currency. Side effects, data sources, and return behavior are entirely undisclosed.

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 and has no fluff, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; the key information an agent needs is absent.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an input schema whose properties do not obviously relate to USD, the description is insufficient for an agent to decide when to call this tool or what to pass.

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 individually cover the 4 parameters (url, host, json, zone), so the schema is self-explanatory at the property level. However, the tool description adds no mapping from currency USD to any parameter, and the parameters appear unrelated to a currency tool, leaving correct invocation unclear.

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 'ISO 4217 currency USD' only defines the currency; it lacks a verb or operation, so an agent cannot know whether this tool fetches rates, converts amounts, or validates currency codes. It also does not differentiate fx-usd from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. There are no exclusions or conditions selecting fx-usd over the sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided and the description discloses almost no behavior. It does not explain whether the tool performs a read, validates input, returns a list, has side effects, or requires authentication. The mention of 'clock calls' is too vague to count as meaningful disclosure.

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

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

The description is short, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It lacks a verb, usage instructions, and any behavioral detail, so the brevity does not serve the agent.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters, the description leaves the invocation contract almost entirely unspecified. An agent cannot reliably determine what inputs are relevant or what the tool returns.

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%, with each parameter individually described, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no extra meaning and does not reconcile the timezone-focused title with the unrelated url, host, and json parameters.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') rather than a statement of what the tool does. It lacks a verb indicating whether it lists, validates, normalizes, or returns zone names, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or validate.

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 sibling list provides no routing hints, and the description gives no context about the intended invoke scenario.

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 reveals a network read operation and an output limit, but doesn't disclose what happens when robots.txt is missing, whether content is cached, network/rate considerations, or how 'group counts' are derived. For a network-facing tool this 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action, target, and output constraint in ten words. Every word earns its place.

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

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

For a tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'group counts', how the four seemingly unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the operation, or any behavioral details like error handling. A network tool needs considerably more context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it also doesn't need to given full coverage. The relevance of 'json' and 'zone' to fetching robots.txt remains unclear, though that's a schema-design issue rather than a description failure.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a public robots.txt'), and a precise output scope ('return group counts only'). This distinguishes the tool's core function clearly, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from 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?

The description implies a use case (retrieve robots.txt group counts) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The qualifier 'public' hints at scope but doesn't explain constraints like URL format or failure handling.

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 description adds one useful behavioral detail—that query and fragment are dropped—but omits many important behaviors: how invalid URLs are handled, whether HTTPS is enforced, what happens when the host, json, or zone parameters are supplied, and what the output structure looks like. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 and gets to the point immediately. There is no filler or redundant wording, and the key scoping detail (dropping query/fragment) is front-loaded.

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

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

Despite having four parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the URL-normalization case and is silent on the json and zone parameters, error behavior, and return format. An agent would not know whether supplying json or zone is valid, ignored, or triggers alternate behavior, which makes the description insufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; the tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics. The description mentions url implicitly but does not explain how host, json, or zone interact with the normalization behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (Return) and the specific pieces of a URL (origin, host, path), which is more specific than just saying 'normalize a URL' and signals that query and fragment are removed. However, the schema includes unrelated parameters (json, zone) that the description does not address, which introduces ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

The description provides a clear when-to-use ('when you need origin, host, and path of a URL') but no explicit exclusions or comparisons with alternatives. It does not say when not to use it or mention other sibling tools. The presence of json/zone parameters is unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently decide when those should be used.

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, but it only states that this is a catalog. It does not disclose whether the tool accepts input, whether it performs lookups, whether it is read-only, or what it returns. Furthermore, the accepted parameters (url, host, json, zone) are completely unrelated to an HTTP status code catalog, creating a significant unexplained mismatch between the stated behavior and the schema.

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

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

The description is a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately compact for a tool that appears to be a reference resource, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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

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

The description is drastically incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It does not explain the role of any parameter, the expected output, or how the catalog behavior maps onto the provided inputs, leaving an agent unable 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic and tied to other concerns (URL normalization, hostname, JSON validation, timezone) rather than to HTTP status codes. The description adds no connecting meaning, so an agent cannot determine how these parameters relate to a status-code catalog. The high coverage baseline of 3 is reduced by the semantic disconnect.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the resource: a catalog of common HTTP status codes. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (citation, compatibility, normalize-url, validate-json, timezone), none of which relate to HTTP status codes. However, 'catalog' is a noun phrase with no verb indicating what action the tool performs, so it stops short of a fully specified 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state use cases for looking up status codes, nor excludes any sibling tools. An agent is left to infer the intended context from the tool name and the sibling list 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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns current time but does not mention whether the result is formatted, whether it accepts any other parameters, or any edge cases such as invalid timezone names. The description is too terse to convey meaningful behavioral context.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. An agent would need to know what the tool accepts (especially that 'zone' is the relevant parameter) and what the output format looks like, none of which is specified.

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 four parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying that the 'zone' parameter is the focus, but since the schema covers the rest, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' provides a verb and resource, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tools, which appear to be unrelated utilities. The tool name and description align, but the purpose is only minimally clear and no differentiator is offered.

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 the tool reports the current time for a given IANA timezone, which clearly suggests using the 'zone' parameter. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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, but it only states the basic output. It does not disclose the timestamp format (e.g., ISO string vs. Unix seconds), whether the four optional parameters are ignored, or that the operation has no side effects. The unrelated schema parameters make this gap more serious.

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 zero filler, making it easy to read. It is arguably too telegraphic and lacks a verb, but for a trivial time-returning tool the size is appropriate.

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 four optional parameters that seem unrelated to the description, no output schema, and no annotations. A complete description would clarify the return format and explicitly state that no parameters are needed or that they are ignored. The current description leaves too much to inference.

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. Each parameter is individually described, but the description adds no link between them and the tool's purpose; none of url, host, json, or zone appears relevant to returning a UTC timestamp. The description fails to warn agents that these parameters are likely irrelevant.

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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool's output: the current UTC time. It distinguishes itself from siblings like timezone and iana-zones by its UTC-centric scope. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not mention that no meaningful input is required.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like timezone or iana-zones. The phrase 'Current UTC timestamp' implies usage only if the agent already knows it needs UTC time; there are no exclusions or comparison with sibling tools.

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

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that the body is discarded, which is significant for an AI agent understanding the non-persistent nature of the operation. However, with no annotations provided, more detail on edge cases (e.g., handling of non-JSON strings, size limits) would be beneficial.

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

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

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary information. The key point (validation + discard) is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to grasp 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?

For a validation tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, the presence of 4 unrelated-looking parameters (url, host, json, zone) without explaining their roles in the validation context creates ambiguity. No return value description is provided, which is a gap for a tool that outputs a validation result.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. However, the description doesn't clarify the relationship between the 'json' parameter and other parameters like 'url' or 'host' – whether url/host are alternative inputs or context for the validation. Baseline 3 is given since schema does the heavy lifting but description could have clarified parameter interplay.

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: validating whether a body is valid JSON, and explicitly notes the body is discarded after the check. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which appear to be normalization/citation/timezone utilities.

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 the tool's use case: checking JSON validity without persisting the input. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the sibling list makes the differentiation clear enough.

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