originality_scan_url

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

Without annotations, the description bears full behavioral burden. It discloses that the API fetches content and runs checks, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, destructiveness, or latency. It adds some value beyond the schema but is not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded, and no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., scan ID or result object). Since the sibling 'originality_get_scan_results' exists, it implies this tool submits a scan, but no mention of output format. With 15 parameters and no output schema, more context is needed.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the 'URL' parameter implicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it scans content from a URL, fetching and analyzing it like a regular scan. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like originality_scan (direct text) and batch_scan (batch processing).

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 says it is 'useful for analyzing published web pages,' implying when to use via URL. It mentions 'same checks as a regular scan,' hinting at alternatives, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to other tools.

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