UTC year

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it discloses one meaningful trait ('Page content is not stored') that complements the schema's 'discarded after the check' for `json`. It doesn't say whether the tool makes live network requests or how failures/statuses are handled.

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 contain the main action and a privacy note with zero waste; the key behavior 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?

Only one of four parameters is meaningfully described, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of why `json` and `zone` parameters exist — an agent cannot fully infer call patterns for those cases.

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. The description adds return-value context for `url` (host/scheme/status) but adds nothing for `host`, `json`, or `zone`.

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?

States a specific action ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') but covers only the URL behavior while the schema accepts `json` and `zone` parameters. It doesn't differentiate from sibling `normalize-url` or explain the broader 'citation' bundle.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like `normalize-url` or `validate-json`, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The 'page content is not stored' remark weakly implies a lightweight check, but nothing explicit.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait: 'No identifiers are retained,' and the schema's 'discarded after the check' reinforces a stateless/privacy behavior. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the response contains.

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 short and front-loaded: it leads with the purpose and adds the key privacy trait in a second sentence. No filler exists, though the brevity contributes to the vague purpose.

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, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description should explain the classification semantics and expected result. Instead it only says 'Show how this request is classified' and adds a privacy note, leaving an agent unable to predict behavior or output.

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 url, host, json, and zone. The description adds only a privacy guarantee and does not explain how the parameters relate to the classification or which ones are meaningful together, so it stays at the baseline.

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 does not say what classification scheme, categories, or compatibility decision is being produced. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as validate-json 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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, which parameter combinations are appropriate, or what kind of request should be sent. It does not mention any of the sibling tools or exclusion conditions.

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 what the tool does not do (WHOIS/ownership lookup), and gives no indication of output format, error behavior, or how it handles invalid hostnames.

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. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the WHOIS/ownership exclusion is concise scoping 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters, this one-line description is insufficient for an agent to confidently call the tool or understand its outputs. The description neither explains the relationship between parameters nor describes the return value.

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 even though the description adds no parameter-specific detail. The description does not clarify why four optional parameters exist or which one is relevant for the hostname-splitting task, but the schema itself documents each field adequately.

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 and resource: splitting a hostname into labels. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' adds a useful boundary and helps set expectations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 choose this tool over sibling tools such as normalize-url or citation. The description implies a lightweight parsing use case but never states prerequisites, input requirements, or when another tool would be more 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not say whether the tool lists, validates, resolves, or returns IANA zones, what inputs it expects, or what output is produced.

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 a noun phrase rather than a structured sentence with a verb. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, since no actionable information 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the tool's purpose and behavior, but it only gives a vague domain. The four optional parameters, the siblings, and the expected return value are all left unexplained.

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 is individually documented and the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no parameter semantics and does not clarify why url, host, and json appear alongside zone, which is the only parameter that aligns with IANA timezone names.

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 resource ('Common IANA timezone names') but does not state any verb or operation, so it reads as a fragment. It also does not distinguish the tool from the timezone-related siblings like timezone, utc-time, and year-utc.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a context but is too vague to help an agent choose between iana-zones and the other time-related 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, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the fetch is of a public resources and that the output is limited to group counts, but it omits behavioral details such as redirect handling, missing robots.txt behavior, error conditions, or 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and output in an efficiently scannable way.

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 unrelated-looking parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully guide invocation. An agent cannot infer which parameters are relevant or what the 'group counts' output will look like.

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 even though the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The schema already documents each parameter clearly, but the description does not clarify how url, host, json, or zone relate to fetching robots.txt.

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 specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('a public robots.txt'), and a clear result ('return group counts only'). It is not a tautology and can be distinguished from siblings like normalize-url, citation, and 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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. There are no references to sibling tools or conditions that would route an agent toward inspect-robots instead of another URL-related tool.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the important behavior of dropping query and fragment and lists the returned components, but it omits edge cases such as invalid URLs, normalization rules, or 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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action and the key query/fragment behavior are stated clearly and economically.

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 input parameters and no output schema or annotations, but the description only accounts for URL normalization. It does not explain how host, json, or zone should be used, nor what happens on invalid input, making the description insufficient for confident 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 baseline is 3 even without extra parameter information in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and it is silent on the host, json, and zone parameters, leaving an unexplained mismatch between the described behavior and the input 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 names a concrete operation (Return) and resource (URL), and specifies the exact derived fields: origin, host, and path. It also states that query and fragment are dropped, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools focused on JSON validation or timezone data.

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 is for extracting URL components while discarding query/fragment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended usage is only inferable from the behavior described.

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 implies a read-only informational catalog and says nothing about output shape, whether parameters are used or ignored, or any 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 short and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. A noun phrase with no operational detail does not earn its place as the only explanatory content for a tool with four 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?

With four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a set of siblings, the description is not complete enough to invoke the tool confidently. It identifies the topic but leaves return format, argument usage, and selection criteria unstated.

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 even without parameter details in the tool description. However, the description adds no connection between url, host, json, and zone and the HTTP status-code catalog, leaving their roles ambiguous.

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 largely restates the tool name: 'status-catalog' becomes 'catalog of ... HTTP status codes.' It identifies the subject matter but provides no verb or operation, so an agent cannot tell whether the tool lists, looks up, or validates status codes.

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 about when to use this tool instead of siblings like citation, validate-json, or normalize-url. The description neither explains a use case nor rules out alternatives, leaving selection entirely 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state the core read-only behavior and the accepted input type (IANA timezone). It does not disclose the response format, invalid-timezone handling, or what happens when zone is omitted.

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 worded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 plus schema are adequate for a simple current-time lookup, but no output schema or annotations exist. The agent still lacks information about return format and behavior on missing or invalid timezone names.

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 of 3 applies. The description reinforces the meaning of the zone parameter but adds no value for 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 clearly defines the tool's operation: it returns the current time for a named IANA timezone. This is specific and not a tautology of the tool name. Its scope is obvious even with unrelated 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?

Usage is implied: an agent should use this when asked for the current time in a named timezone. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it versus alternatives, though the siblings are largely unrelated here.

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 the output concept. It does not specify the timestamp format (e.g., ISO 8601, epoch seconds, human-readable), whether parameters are accepted or silently ignored, or any other behavioral traits. The glaring mismatch between the four schema parameters and the described functionality is also left unaddressed.

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 with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it approaches under-specification rather than true conciseness, missing critical context about parameters and output format.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several overlapping sibling tools, the description is not complete enough. An agent cannot confidently determine whether to pass parameters, what format the timestamp will be in, or how this differs from year-utc and timezone. The description should clarify the parameter situation and output format.

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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) appear entirely unrelated to 'Current UTC timestamp'. The description adds no clarification about whether these parameters are ignored, optional inputs, or config options. A high-coverage baseline is undermined by the semantic mismatch between the parameters and 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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states what the tool returns. It implies a read operation concerned with the current time in UTC. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like year-utc or timezone, which could overlap in functionality.

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 year-utc, timezone, or domain-shape. There is also no clarification about whether the four listed parameters are relevant, ignored, or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the 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, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that 'the body is discarded,' which signals a non-persistent validation check. However, it does not mention the return value, how invalid JSON is reported, or any other side effects, so behavioral transparency is incomplete.

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: two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the key disposal behavior. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description omits important operational context: what the tool returns, how invalid JSON is handled, and which parameters are actually relevant. The schema lists four parameters that appear to belong to other tools, and the description does not clarify that only json should be used.

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 json parameter is clearly described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check,' which aligns with the tool description. However, the description itself adds no parameter meaning and leaves the unrelated url, host, and zone parameters unexplained for this 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This clearly distinguishes validate-json from sibling tools like normalize-url, timezone, and domain-shape, which deal with different concerns. The purpose is immediately evident and not a tautology.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. While the purpose is obvious, an agent is not told, for example, to use this before parsing JSON or that it is not for normalization or URL tasks.

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 and only the phrase 'UTC year', the description discloses almost no behavior. It does not state whether the tool reads data, performs computation, makes network calls, or returns a single value. The presence of unrelated-looking parameters like url, json, and host is not explained at all.

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, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It has no sentence structure, no verb, and no front-loaded explanation of behavior or purpose.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the entire description is two words. An agent cannot determine expected inputs, return value, side effects, or error behavior, so the definition is far from complete enough 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 itself provides clear descriptions for all four parameters, so baseline parameter documentation is solid. However, the tool description adds no meaning about how these parameters relate to the concept of 'UTC year', leaving the agent to guess which parameters are relevant and how they combine.

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 'UTC year' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no verb, so it does not specify what action the tool performs. It could mean 'get the current UTC year', 'return the UTC year for a given zone', or something else entirely. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like utc-time or timezone.

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 instead of related siblings such as utc-time, timezone, or iana-zones. No context, conditions, or exclusions are provided, so an agent cannot decide whether year-utc is the appropriate tool for a task.

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