scan_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real time' (implying speed) and 'fully scan' (suggesting comprehensiveness), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'malicious content' entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads key actions ('scan', 'classify') and details. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured by separating core functionality from additional features for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., scan results format), error cases, or operational constraints like rate limits. For a security scanning tool, this omission is significant and reduces usability.

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, with the 'url' parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the URL is scanned for threats, which the schema's example already suggests. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: scanning a URL for malicious content with specific categories (Spam/Gray classification) and additional flags (domain age). It uses specific verbs ('scan', 'classify') and identifies the resource (URL), but lacks sibling tools for differentiation, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It mentions 'real time' and 'fully scan' but does not specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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