diagnose_url_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces that with a leading '[READ-ONLY]' label. It goes beyond annotations by disclosing what analysis components will be included and that the tool explicitly avoids recommending already-existing categories, which is useful behavioral context.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and core purpose, followed by a structured list of investigation areas. It earns its length by conveying the full diagnostic scope and the unique 'prevent duplicate category' outcome, with only minor redundancy from repeating the read-only annotation.

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 complex diagnostic tool with seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential expected results: categories, PAN-DB classification, relevant rules/profiles, logs, and conclusions. It does not detail output formatting or the effect of each optional parameter, but those are largely covered by the schema, and the description conveys enough context for successful 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, including defaults and examples, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The description only hints at the 'user' parameter through 'recent URL logs for the user' and adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Full analysis of why a URL is blocked/allowed.' It further specifies the investigation scope (custom categories, PAN-DB category, rules/profiles, logs, conclusions) and the unique goal of preventing proposals for categories that already exist, which distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools.

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 makes the intended use case clear: when a URL is blocked/allowed and the user needs to understand why, especially before proposing a new custom category. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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