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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses returned fields and importantly warns that values are attacker-authored. Missing details on pagination, ordering, or rate limits, but the warning adds significant transparency.

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 concise sentences: first lists purpose and return fields, second delivers a critical security warning. No fluff, 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?

For a simple listing tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and a warning. Lacks mention of pagination behavior or sorting order (e.g., most recent first).

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter info beyond what the schema already provides (brand slug examples, limit range).

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 states it lists active phishing sites for a specific brand, specifies the return fields (URL, IP, etc.), and implies scope (most recent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_phishings or get_recent_detections.

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 usage for listing brand-specific phishings but does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use. The security warning is a guideline for handling results, but no when-to-use/alternatives are provided.

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