check_scope

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the tool also returns exclusions that require manual review, which is non-obvious and beyond the structured metadata. No contradiction with 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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional return behavior is stated efficiently.

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 rich annotations, the description covers the necessary context well. It explains the input domain and calls out the exclusions return value, though with no output schema it could go slightly further in describing the exact response structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the target parameter accepts a URL, domain, or IPv4, and by tying the operation to a program's declared scopes. The program_slug parameter is somewhat implicit, but the pattern and tool name make its role reasonably inferable.

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 specific verb ('Vérifie techniquement') and resource ('si une URL, un domaine ou une IPv4 correspond aux scopes déclarés d'un programme'). It also communicates an additional outcome (returning exclusions for manual review), which fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_program or search_programs.

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 intended use is implied by the description: call this tool to check whether a target is in scope for a program. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when it should not be used, so the usage guidance is present only by implication.

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