phone_lookup

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 only reveals that PhoneInfoga uses free sources, but it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, data returned, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's complete 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, focused sentence that avoids unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and the target. However, it is almost too brief, lacking any structure for additional helpful context, but that is a completeness concern rather than a conciseness flaw.

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 low complexity (two parameters) and no output schema or annotations, the description still does not sufficiently explain what the tool returns, what 'scan' entails, or any caveats. An agent would not know what to expect from the 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?

The schema has no descriptions for the parameters, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning of 'selector' (presumably the phone number) or 'timeout'. This leaves the agent without any guidance on how to fill the parameters.

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 function: scanning a phone number via PhoneInfoga. The verb 'scan' and the resource 'phone number' are specific, and the mention of PhoneInfoga distinguishes this from sibling reconnaissance tools like email_recon or username_sweep.

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 when a phone number needs to be checked against free OSINT sources. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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