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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds the specific data source (Google Safe Browsing) and the nature of the result (status), which slightly expands beyond annotations, though no further behavioral details are given.

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 two sentences, with the main action in the first and a related-tools pointer in the second. No redundant content.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, robust annotations), the description is sufficient and includes a helpful related-tools note. Complete for its context.

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?

The schema fully describes the single domain parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns Google Safe Browsing status for a domain, using a specific verb and resource. It also names related tools (whois, backlink_summary) to help distinguish it from siblings.

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 names related tools but does not explain when to prefer safety over whois or backlink_summary. There is no explicit usage context or exclusion criteria, so only an implicit sense of purpose guides selection.

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