acedatacloud_check_frame_ancestor

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Check' clearly implies a non-mutating, read-style operation involving frame ancestry, which is adequate but minimal; more detail about the security implications (e.g., clickjacking/CSRF) or the nature of the boolean result would improve transparency. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 one-parameter, non-nested tool with a full parameter schema and its own output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, the absence of annotations and the security-critical nature of an origin-frame check mean slightly more contextual guidance would make this genuinely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the single 'origin' parameter is described as 'Embedding origin or referer.'), which warrants the baseline of 3. The description reinforces the semantic link between 'origin' and framing but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 'Check whether an origin may frame the login page' uses a specific verb plus resource and is immediately understandable. It also differentiates from the domain-verification siblings (e.g., acedatacloud_verify_site_domain, acedatacloud_check_site_domain) by making the framing/auth-context concern explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the similarly scoped domain check tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mentions of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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