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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return ordering (sorted by most recent first_seen), security warning about attacker-authored data (prompt injection protection), and explains the service_range field semantics — useful context beyond structured fields. It doesn't cover pagination or rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are well-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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then examples, then safety warning, then field explanation. Every sentence is informative. Slightly dense but well-structured; no obvious waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage examples, return ordering, data safety, and an extra field's semantics. It could mention result limits or pagination behavior, but it's largely complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some context via examples of query strings but doesn't explain syntax or format beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (search) and resource (active phishing URLs, domains, IPs) with scope ('active', 'free-text'). Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_recent_detections and list_brand_phishings by being a query-driven search rather than a listing.

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?

Provides concrete query examples ('sites containing steamcommunity', 'phishing on 1.2.3.4') that implicitly show the usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. siblings like get_recent_detections or analyze_url — no exclusions or alternative routing.

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