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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scale semantics (0-10 risk, 0-100 confidence), but it contradicts the schema by claiming defaults of 7 and 70 while the schema declares default null for both, leaving the agent unsure whether a threshold is applied when the argument 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded before the parameter detail. The clause enumerating return fields ('URL, title and the analysis') is slightly redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the filtering semantics are covered. Gaps remain around limit/ordering/pagination behavior and the default-value conflict, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains two of three parameters well, giving scale and default for min_risk_score and min_confidence. The third parameter, limit, is never mentioned, and the stated defaults conflict with the schema's null defaults.

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 verb and resource ('List scans that the AI analysis rated high risk'), which is materially different from sibling search_ai_classification and search_ai_scam_type. It never names those siblings, however, so an agent comparing the three AI-search tools gets no explicit routing signal.

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 two optional threshold filters and their defaults imply the intended usage context (surfacing the top of the AI risk distribution), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search_ai_classification or search_analyzer_high_risk.

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