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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent; the description adds important behavioral details: domains are returned defanged (evil[.]pl) and must never be turned into clickable links. It also credits the open data source, giving additional transparency beyond schema/annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the core function before adding usage guidance and a safety warning. Each segment serves a purpose; 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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, when to use, return format with safety caveat, and data source. No significant gaps.

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 single optional parameter 'limit' is fully described in the input schema (1-50, default 15), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so 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 identifies the resource (CERT Polska warning list) and specifies the returned content (latest phishing domains). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating the exact user query scenario ('UŻYJ, gdy...'), making purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use it: when the user asks about fresh/current scam sites, new phishing campaigns, or examples of fraudulent domains in Poland. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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