Leap year check

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 adds that page content is not stored, and omits expected behaviors such as whether the URL is fetched, redirect handling, error behavior, or HTTPS enforcement. The schema's unrelated params (json, zone) suggest unadvertised behaviors.

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?

Exactly two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the second sentence is a meaningful behavioral note. Every word earns its place despite being under-specified overall.

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 4 loosely related parameters, 9 siblings, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It explains only the URL behavior, leaves json and zone unexplained in context, and lists host as an output while the schema defines it as an input, creating ambiguity.

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 schema already documents each parameter and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about host, json, or zone semantics; it only notes that URL content is not stored, which marginally supplements the url parameter's meaning.

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?

'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL' is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the core action and outputs. However, it does not differentiate this tool from overlapping siblings like normalize-url and status-catalog, which an agent would need disambiguated.

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

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

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With nine siblings including normalize-url and status-catalog that closely overlap this tool's stated purpose, the agent is left to guess which tool to invoke.

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. 'No identifiers are retained' is a useful privacy/behavioral disclosure, but the description does not explain what happens to the inputs (url, host, json, zone) during classification, whether computation is local, or what side effects (if any) exist.

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 no filler. The purpose is stated first and the privacy note is a meaningful addition, though 'how this request is classified' could have been more specific without hurting 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?

The tool accepts four optional parameters and has no output schema, yet the description provides no information about what the classification output looks like, what categories exist, or what each input contributes. An agent cannot reliably determine whether this tool is the right one or how to interpret the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning — it never mentions url, host, json, or zone, nor how each input influences the classification.

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 ('this request'), but 'how this request is classified' is vague — it doesn't specify what classification means (citation type? URL category? validation verdict?) or what output the agent should expect. Among siblings like citation, validate-json, and normalize-url, the tool's distinct role is not clear.

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 siblings such as validate-json or normalize-url. The description implies it is a classification/checking tool for a request, but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or 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?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no WHOIS or ownership data will be returned, which is a meaningful constraint. But it doesn't describe output format, edge cases (e.g., empty hostname, ports, punycode), or whether the input is normalized before splitting.

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 filler. It communicates the core operation and a key limitation efficiently. It could earn a 5 by adding a brief usage hint, but as-is it's appropriately tight.

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 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'labels' means as a return value, which parameter to pass, or why 'json' and 'zone' exist in the schema. An agent would need additional inference to call this reliably.

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 basic description, but the tool description adds no mapping between its 'hostname' operation and the four optional properties. An agent cannot tell whether to provide 'host', 'url', or something else, and the unrelated 'json' and 'zone' parameters are not reconciled with the stated purpose.

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

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

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Split a hostname into labels'. It also adds a clarifying exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data') which helps distinguish it from enrichment-oriented domain tools. However, it doesn't reference sibling tools or explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it loses the last point.

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 vs a WHOIS/ownership lookup, and no alternative tools are named. The phrase 'without WHOIS' hints at a use case, but it's never stated which input parameter (url, host, json, or zone) should be passed. The agent is left to infer the 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not meet it. It says nothing about side effects, return values, failure modes, or how the four input fields (url, host, json, zone) relate to the 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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to earn its place because it adds no actionable information beyond the tool name and leaves the reader needing to inspect the schema.

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

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

For a tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and ambiguous sibling relationships, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what input to supply or what response to expect from 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls.'

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 input schema fully documents each parameter name and type. The description adds no semantic connection between these parameters and the timezone-name purpose, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 that mostly restates the tool name ('IANA timezone names'), adding only the vague qualifiers 'common' and 'for clock calls'. It lacks a verb or explicit action, so an agent cannot tell whether this tool lists, validates, or resolves timezone names. It also does not differentiate iana-zones from the sibling 'timezone' 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?

'For clock calls' gives a faint hint about intended usage, but there is no statement of when to choose this tool over siblings like 'timezone' or 'validate'. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, leaving the usage decision mostly to inference.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'returns group counts only,' which sets a scope expectation, but it doesn't disclose what happens on failure (e.g., if robots.txt is missing) or whether the fetch is restricted to public hosts. For a tool that makes network requests, this lack of behavioral detail is a notable 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and expected output. It is efficiently worded with no fluff. It could be improved by adding a brief usage example or clarifying intent, but for the length, it 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain which parameters are actually needed to perform the fetch (e.g., is 'url' the only relevant one?), nor does it describe the return structure beyond 'group counts.' An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without opening the schema and making assumptions.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so each parameter has a basic description. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning about how parameters like 'json' or 'zone' relate to fetching robots.txt—these seem irrelevant to the stated purpose. The schema descriptions are generic, and the description doesn't clarify which parameters are actually used or how they interact, leaving potential confusion.

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 return group counts only.' This makes the core action clear. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like crawl or query, which could also involve fetching web resources, so an agent might still be uncertain about when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crawl or search. It doesn't specify scenarios where inspecting robots.txt is preferable, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and short 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 present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals nothing about side effects, return format, error cases, or what input is consumed; 'check' only vaguely implies a read-only 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 text is short but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single phrase has no front-loaded practical information and fails to earn its place as a useful tool 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 four parameters, no required fields, no annotations, no output schema, and no usage clues, this description is completely inadequate for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. It does not even indicate what constitutes a valid leap-year input or what result to expect.

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

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

The input schema already documents each parameter with a description, and schema coverage is 100%, so this is at the baseline of 3. Even so, the description adds no meaning to the parameters or their relationship to a leap-year check, leaving it unclear which parameter is relevant.

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 near-tautology of the tool name ('Leap year check') and gives no operation detail beyond the name. It does not say how the four unrelated schema properties (url, host, json, zone) relate to leap-year determination, so an agent cannot tell what the tool actually does.

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 invoke this tool versus its siblings such as timezone, utc-time, or compatibility. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so an agent must guess the intended use case.

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 does disclose one behavioral trait ('Query and fragment are dropped') but does not mention how invalid URLs are handled, whether protocol/case are preserved, or what the actual return structure looks like beyond three components. The unrelated schema parameters also muddy the behavioral picture.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the main action and immediately states an important behavioral constraint. This is an efficient structure.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, but the description explains only one parameter's purpose and says nothing about the others. The mismatch between the description and schema is a critical gap. An agent cannot fully understand when or how to use this tool without resolving that inconsistency.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description only addresses the 'url' parameter and does not help reconcile why 'json' and 'zone' belong in a URL-normalization tool. The schema descriptions are clear individually, but the lack of description-level integration leaves parameter roles confusing.

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 and output ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL') and notes a key behavior (dropping query and fragment). This makes the tool's primary purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, and the input schema introduces unrelated parameters (json, zone) that create ambiguity.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like validate-json and timezone, the presence of 'json' and 'zone' parameters in the schema could mislead an agent, but no exclusion or routing advice is 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 behavioral burden. It only says 'short catalog,' which hints at limited data but does not disclose whether the tool returns a static table, checks a status, or accepts any of the four optional parameters. The 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 text is genuinely short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concise. 'Short catalog' is vague and the single sentence does not provide enough substance to be considered a well-structured tool 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?

Given the tool has 4 optional, unrelated parameters and no output schema, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters do, when they are relevant, or what the tool will return, so an agent cannot reliably decide to call it or set parameters correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no parameter context at all, and the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are not obviously related to HTTP status codes, creating an unresolved gap between the described purpose and the actual inputs.

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 resource ('common HTTP status codes') and its scope ('short catalog'), but uses no active verb. It is unclear whether the tool lists, looks up, or explains codes, which makes it hard to distinguish from an informational endpoint or a lookup utility.

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 for when to use this tool versus any sibling. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical invocation scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the bare 'status catalog' phrase.

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 basic function and does not explain output format, behavior for missing or invalid zones, or why unrelated fields like url, host, and json appear in the schema. This leaves important behavioral uncertainty for the agent.

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, but it is arguably too thin given the schema's confusing extra parameters and the absence of annotations.

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 low-complexity tool, the description covers the main intent, but the schema's four optional parameters and zero required parameters mean the agent is not told that zone is the only meaningful input. With no output schema and no annotation, return format and error behavior are also undisclosed, making this incomplete for safe 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?

All parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is met. However, the tool description adds no disambiguating guidance about which parameter to actually use; it merely repeats the notion of an IANA timezone, which the zone parameter already states. The unrelated parameters are left unexplained, so an agent could be uncertain whether they play a role.

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 task: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone, which clearly identifies the tool's core purpose. However, the input schema contains three unrelated optional parameters (url, host, json) that the description does not acknowledge, creating some ambiguity about what this 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?

The usage context is implied by the description: use this tool when you need the current time in a specific IANA timezone. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or discussion of alternatives, though none of the sibling tools directly compete with this function.

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, but it only states the core output without explaining return format, precision, or how the four input parameters affect behavior. The agent is left guessing whether the result is ISO-8601, epoch seconds, or something else.

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 this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A three-word phrase cannot earn credit for efficiency when it omits essential information about parameters, output format, and 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?

This is severely incomplete for a tool with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain the relationship between the tool's stated purpose and its schema, leaving an agent unable to determine whether to pass parameters or how the response will be shaped.

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 the schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the parameters themselves (url, host, json, zone) are glaringly disconnected from a tool that returns the current UTC timestamp. The description adds no meaning about why an agent would supply a URL, hostname, JSON text, or IANA timezone to a time-lookup tool, leaving callers confused about parameter relevance.

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' essentially restates the tool name 'utc-time' and provides no verb or action. It states what is returned but offers no differentiation from sibling tools like timezone or date-time, and the bare noun phrase gives no operational clarity.

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

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

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include timezone and date-time, yet nothing explains the distinguishing conditions, when not to use this tool, or what scenarios make it the right choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the body is discarded, which is useful, but it does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or that only the 'json' property is relevant and other schema properties appear unrelated.

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 brief and front-loaded, with two short sentences that state purpose and the key side effect. It is efficiently sized, though it omits important clarification about parameters.

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 too sparse to correctly call the tool given the mismatched schema, no output schema, and no usage guidance. It fails to clarify which parameters are actually used and what response shape to expect.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions for url, host, and zone are clearly irrelevant to a JSON validation tool. The description does not clarify that these are extraneous or that only 'json' should be populated, so the agent is likely to be misled about the expected inputs.

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: it checks whether a body is valid JSON and explicitly notes the body is discarded. It is clear on the core purpose, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools or specify the exact output format.

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, nor are any preconditions or exclusion criteria mentioned. The description only says what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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