Scamchecker.nl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say the content is sent to an external service for analysis, what the verdict looks like, or any latency/rate considerations, despite openWorldHint implying external transmission. It also merely restates the same sentence in Dutch.

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 in the first clause, but the entire description is duplicated verbatim in Dutch, doubling length without adding a single new fact. The bilingual repetition earns no place for an English-reading agent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with 0% schema coverage and a schema whose constraints live entirely in anyOf, the description should clarify that exactly one input form is required and how images must be encoded; it only gestures at the input modalities.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It implicitly maps the named modalities to the parameters ('link' -> url, 'screenshot' -> image_base64/image_mime, message -> text), which is genuinely useful, but it never explains the anyOf constraint (supply one of text, url, or image pair), the base64 encoding requirement, or the accepted MIME types.

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 (check) and resource (email/SMS/WhatsApp message, link or screenshot) plus the goal (scam signals), so an agent knows exactly what the tool analyzes. No siblings exist, so no sibling differentiation is required, though it also does not name what class of tool (analyzer) this belongs to.

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 word 'suspicious' defines the trigger condition and the enumerated input kinds (email, SMS, WhatsApp, link, screenshot) make it clear what can be submitted. There are no alternatives to exclude and no prerequisites mentioned, but for a single-purpose checker this is sufficient context.

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