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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one behavioral trait — the response avoids exposing API keys — but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the call itself consumes quota. The safety disclosure is real but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then triggers, then the discouraging condition. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the usage gating is thorough. The only real hole is the two undocumented parameters, which nothing in the description or schema clarifies.

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% and the description never mentions task_id or request_id, which default to 'default' and ''. An agent has no guidance on what these identifiers should contain or when to override the defaults, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get account quota information'), which is clearly distinct from the search/host/stats siblings. It does not explicitly say how it differs from fofa_stats or fofa_health, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 gives explicit positive triggers (user requests quota status, before a deliberately large task, after a quota error) and an explicit negative ('Do not call before every ordinary search'). This is a textbook when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement with no inference required.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the check is local-only, makes no remote call, and does not consume FOFA quota — the key behavioral traits for a health check. It stops short of mentioning configuration prerequisites (e.g., missing API keys) or error semantics, which would be the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core distinguishing constraint ('without making a remote FOFA request') front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 explained, and the description covers purpose, timing, and side effects adequately for a single-parameter diagnostic tool. The only omission is any note about configuration/auth prerequisites or what a failing health check implies.

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?

There is one optional parameter (request_id) with 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description. It is a trivial, optional tracing field with a default, so the practical impact is low, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type declaration.

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+resource ('check local configuration') and immediately scopes it with 'without making a remote FOFA request,' which cleanly separates it from the remote-call siblings (fofa_search, fofa_host, fofa_stats). An agent can distinguish this diagnostic tool from all siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('at startup or for installation/configuration diagnosis'), which is stronger than implied guidance. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'no remote request' clause effectively frames the boundary against the search tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does add real context: it operates on a single host rather than in bulk. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or the cost of calling it, and the warning against per-result calls implies a constraint without explaining it.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the scoping rule. No filler or redundancy; every phrase earns its place.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the usage guidance is strong. The gap is parameter documentation: three of four params (detail, task_id, request_id) have zero coverage, leaving the agent guessing at invocation semantics.

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?

Four parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description explains only 'host' implicitly via 'one selected IP or hostname'. The meaning of 'detail', 'task_id', and 'request_id' is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Get FOFA host aggregation') scoped to 'one selected IP or hostname', and explicitly distinguishes itself from the search family by rejecting bulk use. Clear enough to separate from fofa_search siblings, though it doesn't differentiate from the less-related fofa_stats.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('after search identifies a priority asset') and when not to ('not a bulk replacement for search', 'should not be called for every result by default'). It names the alternative and the selecting condition, leaving nothing to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this reads indexed data rather than scanning or probing targets, and reveals the pagination contract (has_more / next_token). It says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the 'confirm' and 'task_id' parameters actually do, which leaves gaps for a tool with an undocumented 'confirm' flag.

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 action, then a sequence of short routing sentences that each carry distinct decision value. The only mild cost is that the routing list is long relative to the tool's single required parameter, but no sentence is pure 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still usefully surfaces the has_more/next_token continuation contract. The gap is parameter completeness: with 0% schema coverage on 8 parameters, an agent cannot tell what confirm, task_id, format, or fields control, so the definition is not fully self-sufficient.

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% across 8 parameters, and the description clarifies only the meaning of 'query' (a FOFA DSL expression). Page, size, fields, format, confirm, task_id, and request_id are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, including the potentially consequential 'confirm' boolean.

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 and resource ('Run one page of a complete FOFA DSL query') and implicitly scopes it against siblings by naming the conditions under which each alternative applies. An agent can distinguish it from fofa_search_structured and fofa_search_next without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing: use this when a DSL query already exists, use fofa_search_structured for ordinary domain/IP/port conditions, chain to fofa_search_next when has_more=true and next_token is present, and reserve fofa_stats and fofa_host for their specific cases. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with named alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: cursor-state rules, parameter-preservation constraints, and that full=true may increase scope or cost and needs confirmation. It still omits auth requirements, rate limits, and token-expiry/error handling.

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 concise operational rules. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 explained. However, with no annotations and 0% input-schema coverage, the description should compensate more fully for a 10-parameter tool; four parameters remain undocumented.

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% across 10 parameters. The description adds meaning for next_token, cursor_page, full, confirm, and says query/fields/full should remain unchanged, but leaves size, format, task_id, and request_id undocumented.

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 ('Continue'), resource ('FOFA cursor query'), and scope ('using the previous response's next_token'). This clearly distinguishes it from the initial search sibling fofa_search.

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?

Explicitly says when to call ('only when a prior search returned a next_token'), when not to call ('Do not call this repeatedly after next_token is empty'), and adds a prerequisite for full=true ('requires confirm=true').

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does surface the pagination contract (one page only, has_more/next_token handoff), which is genuinely useful. However, for a 15-param tool it says nothing about the 'confirm' gate, quota/cost, auth requirements, or what page/size/format do operationally.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the routing rule. No filler; every clause carries load-bearing information.

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 needn't be explained, and the routing/pagination story is complete. But with 15 undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description leaves the confirmation gate and operational controls (page, size, format, task_id) unaddressed for a tool this broad.

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 explain parameters, and it does map eight conditions (domain, IP, port, host, body, icon hash, ICP, status code) to query-builder inputs. It adds no meaning for page, size, fields, format, confirm, task_id, or request_id, leaving nearly half the parameters opaque.

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 and resource: build a FOFA query from structured conditions and run one page. It explicitly contrasts itself with the manual-DSL sibling (fofa_search) and the pagination sibling (fofa_search_next), so an agent can route without opening another schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this instead of manually composing DSL for domain, IP, port...') and a precise continuation condition ('Continue only with fofa_search_next when the result explicitly provides has_more=true and next_token'). Both the alternative and the triggering condition are named.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one useful trait: this is not a routine follow-up to every search, implying a cost/latency reason. However it says nothing about rate limits, quotas, credentials, or whether the query is a literal FOFA query string, so significant behavioral gaps remain.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and the usage guardrail second, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the core purpose is covered. But for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description leaves the meaning of fields, top_n, task_id, and request_id (and the query string format) unaddressed.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only a passing hint at aggregatable dimensions ('top titles, countries, ports, or products') gestures at 'fields' or 'top_n'; task_id and request_id are entirely unexplained anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Return FOFA aggregation statistics for a query.' This clearly distinguishes an aggregation tool from the search-oriented siblings (fofa_search, fofa_host), but it never names an alternative explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('only when the caller needs distributions such as top titles, countries, ports, or products') plus a clear exclusion ('do not call automatically after every search'). It stops short of naming a sibling tool for the alternative path, but the when/when-not conditions are unambiguous.

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