analyze_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description comprehensively covers side effects, authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy in a dedicated section. This fully compensates for the lack of annotations.

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 well-structured with clear headings and sections, but it is somewhat verbose and repeats behavioral transparency information in both a list and a block. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and remains readable.

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 output schema, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is highly complete. It covers behavior, error handling, rate limits, authentication, and privacy, leaving no critical gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description provides brief explanations for each parameter (url, api_key) in the Args section, adding some meaning beyond the schema, but does not elaborate on formats, constraints, or defaults. This partially compensates but could be more detailed.

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 'Check a URL for phishing indicators and suspicious patterns,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like detect_social_engineering or verify_sender by focusing on URL phishing analysis.

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?

Explicitly provides 'When to use' (structured analysis against frameworks) and 'When NOT to use' (not for real-time production without human review), offering clear context and exclusions.

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