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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the authoritative data source and, crucially, the limitation that absence from the list is not a guarantee of safety. It does not describe rate limits, freshness, or the exact return shape, but the key behavioral caveat is present.

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 tightly written sentences: the scope/source is front-loaded and the caveat follows. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers source, purpose, and the meaning of a negative result. It could say slightly more about what a positive match returns (flags, categories), but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100% and the single `url` parameter is already documented with an example in the schema, so the description adds no format or syntax detail beyond it. Baseline 3 for a fully-covered single-parameter 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 states a precise verb and resource: it checks a URL/domain against the specific 165 'stopped-resolution fraud website' list published by Taiwan's National Police Agency. The data source is named, so the agent knows exactly what kind of check this is and can distinguish it from other crypto 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?

It clearly implies the context of use (screening crypto-related URLs/domains for fraud) and gives an important interpretive rule: a negative result does not prove safety. It does not name competing alternatives, but no sibling performs a comparable scam-domain lookup.

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