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. It only states that the tool yields links to spam report databases, but does not mention whether it performs a lookup, what it does with an empty query (q has a default), whether it requires a phone number, or any other runtime behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 brief and front-loaded, containing no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core resource without fluff. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, which limits the value of the 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?

Although the tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, the description fails to provide essential context for correct invocation. An agent cannot tell what value to put in 'q', whether the tool is read-only, or what kind of links will be returned. The lack of usage guidance and parameter semantics makes the definition incomplete.

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 provides only a parameter named 'q' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'robocall / scam report-database links', implying q is likely a phone number or spam-related query, but it never explicitly states what q should contain. The description does not compensate for the empty schema documentation.

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 identifies the resource as 'Spam Reports' and specifies the domain (Robocall / scam report-database links). It clearly conveys that the tool returns links to spam-reporting databases, which distinguishes it from generic phone lookup tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Look up' or 'Search', making it slightly less action-oriented.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as phone, phoneapps, or phonecc. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the use case entirely from the name and minimal description.

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