url_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions outputs like 'reputation scores' and 'classifications from various sources,' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. The description is informative about what the tool returns but lacks operational 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 efficiently structured in two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then elaborating on outputs and benefits. It avoids redundancy and stays focused, though minor trimming (e.g., 'effectively' at the end) could improve it further.

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 moderate complexity (threat analysis with multiple data sources), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It outlines what the tool does and its outputs but lacks details on response structure, limitations, or integration context, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.

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%, with the single parameter 'query' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., URL format expectations or validation rules), so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or detracting.

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's purpose: 'Provides in-depth threat analysis for a given URL' with specific outputs like reputation scores, categories, and security evaluations. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on URLs rather than domains, hashes, or IP addresses, though it doesn't explicitly name those 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 implies usage context through 'threat analysis' and 'identify potential risks,' suggesting it's for security assessment scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (domain_search, hash_search, ip_address_search) or provide any exclusion criteria.

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