Sprawdź wiadomość: domeny i numery

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Werdykt deterministyczny, zero LLM' (deterministic verdict, no LLM) and data source (numertel.pl). It also explains recognition of obfuscated formats like evil[.]pl and hxxp://. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint).

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 a single paragraph but well-structured with numbered points and formatting. It is informative without being excessively long. However, it could be slightly more concise by grouping some details.

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 complexity (checking multiple types against two databases with specific formats), the description covers purpose, input types, data sources, and deterministic behavior. An output schema exists (not shown but implied) and the description mentions the verdict nature, making it complete.

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 parameter 'text' has schema description covering 100%. The description adds significant meaning: it explains what checks are performed on the input (against two databases), the types of data it can parse, and context like max length. This goes well beyond the schema's brief description.

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 checks suspicious messages for domains, links, emails against the Polish government warning list, and Polish phone numbers against a spam database. It specifies the verb 'Sprawdza' (checks) and the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like check_phone_number or 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?

The description explicitly says when to use: when a user asks if a link/site/email is safe or pastes an SMS/email with a link and number. It also defines acceptable input types (single domain, URL, email, number, or full message). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough.

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