tool_check_url_safety

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return values (risk score, safety flags, domain info) and required env var. Does not mention rate limits or error handling, but is adequate for a simple check tool.

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?

Concise, front-loaded description. Three sentences plus an Args block with parameter clarifications. No redundant 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?

No output schema, but description lists return types. Parameters are fully explained. The tool is simple and self-contained; the description provides all necessary context for agent invocation.

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 description compensates fully. For 'url' it adds 'Full URL to check (include https://)' and for 'strictness' it adds 'Detection strictness 0-3, default 1', providing meaning beyond schema field names.

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?

Explicitly states 'Check a URL for phishing, malware, spam and other threats,' with a specific verb and resource. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that check email, IP, phone, etc.

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?

Mentions required env var IPQS_API_KEY and provides a link to get a free API key. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the tool's specific focus on URLs implies appropriate context.

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