classify_url

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 the cost ($0.0002 USDC) and that classification happens 'locally', which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or what side effects (if any) occur, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 highly compact: a cost note and a single-purpose sentence. Every word earns its place, and the cost is front-loaded for immediate awareness. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

While an output schema presumably covers return values, the description misses critical context around the payment_signature parameter, which affects how the tool is called. It also does not mention any prerequisites or side effects. For a paid tool, the payment mechanism should be explained, making the description incomplete for effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It implicitly explains the 'url' parameter (the URL to classify) but entirely omits any mention of 'payment_signature', its purpose, or how it relates to the stated cost. This is a major gap for correct invocation.

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 clear verb ('Classify') and resource ('one URL'), with a specific purpose ('for fetch safety'). It differentiates itself by noting 'locally' and the use case of untrusted URLs, which helps distinguish it from siblings like scan_payload_safety or check_address_risk, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides a clear when-to-use: 'Invoke before passing an untrusted URL to a network-capable fetcher.' This gives direct usage context but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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