Check a message for scam signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses that analysis runs fully offline and deterministically by default, and returns an explainable verdict, score, matched signals, playbook, and briefing. It does not mention side effects, permissions, limitations, or how the optional ai second opinion affects offline behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and remains reasonably efficient. The output-detail sentence is long but earns most of its place by documenting return values, which is necessary because there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return values: verdict levels, 0-100 score, matched signals, playbook, and intelligence briefing. It also covers input types and offline/deterministic behavior, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already explains text, ai, region, sender, and conversation. The description only echoes the transcript use case and adds no real parameter semantics beyond the structured schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: analyze SMS, chat messages, email bodies, or transcripts for scam signals. This clearly distinguishes check_message from siblings like check_number and check_url, which operate on different artifacts.

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 says to use it before advising a user to act on any unsolicited message, giving a clear usage context. It does not name when to prefer check_number, check_url, or other siblings, so the routing guidance is good but not complete.

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