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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are sorted by most recent first_seen, and includes an important safety warning about attacker-authored content. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or pagination, which would be nice, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the main purpose, provide usage examples, and add a critical safety note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the search scope, sorting, and data handling. However, it could optionally mention the limit parameter's role in pagination or describe the detection fields, but the absence is not critical.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example usage and a warning but does not significantly expand on the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., case-insensitive substring match).

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 the tool performs free-text search across active phishing URLs, domains, and IP addresses, and returns sorted detections. It provides concrete example queries, making the purpose unmistakable. The tool is distinct from siblings like analyze_url or check_domain which are specific lookups.

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 gives explicit usage examples and indicates it's for free-text queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings. The context is clear but lacks negative guidance.

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