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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search covers active phishing data, returns results sorted by most recent first_seen, and includes a strong safety warning that returned URLs/domains are attacker-authored and must be treated as data, not instructions. It lacks some detail about the exact shape of a detection result, but the core behaviors 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?

The description is four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the search scope, stating result ordering, giving usage examples, and warning about untrusted content. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, this description is highly complete: it explains what is searched, how results are sorted, when to use it, and how to handle the returned data safely. The lack of detailed return-field descriptions is not a practical gap given the simple search use case and the rich examples provided.

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 meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the query matches URLs, domains, or IP addresses and by offering natural-language query examples that map directly to the query parameter. Limit semantics remain in the schema, which already documents them adequately.

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 specific verb and resource: free-text search across active phishing URLs, domains, and IP addresses. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_url or get_recent_detections, which do not offer free-text querying across these fields.

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 provides concrete, realistic query examples that signal exactly when to use the tool, such as searching for a brand substring or an IP address. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the full 5.

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