Two tools with minimal descriptions (10-15 chars each, well below the 20-char floor). No output schema documentation. No error handling guidance. Tool names are verb-based (parse_domain, parse_problem) but descriptions are too terse to guide LLM selection. No indication of what the tools return or when to use one vs. the other. Composition is reasonable (two focused tools), but definition quality is severely hampered by missing parameter docs and output specs.

• Expand tool descriptions to 50 - 150 characters. Example: 'parse_domain: Parses PDDL domain definitions (Lisp-like syntax) into a structured JSON AST containing predicates and actions. Use this to extract domain structure before parsing problems.'
• Add parameter descriptions in the schema. For 'domain_text': 'PDDL domain definition as a string, starting with (define (domain ...)) and containing :predicates and :action blocks.'
• Document the output schema for each tool. Example for parse_domain: 'Returns {domain_name: string, predicates_count: number, actions: [{name, parameters, preconditions, effects}]}'.
• Add error handling guidance in the tool description or via structured error responses. Example: 'If parsing fails, the error message will indicate the invalid PDDL structure, ensure the input starts with (define (domain ...)) or (define (problem ...)).'
• Consider adding a 'validate_pddl' tool that checks syntax without parsing, enabling agents to validate before attempting full parsing.