Check a domain for publicly exposed sensitive files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict any of them. It adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states it 'makes ordinary GET requests for a small FIXED list of well-known paths', it does not brute-force/fuzz/enumerate, the list never grows or adapts, and it 'does no port scanning and no exploit testing'. It also discloses the operational fingerprint (requests are recognisable in logs), which is valuable for informed invocation.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then adds essential operational clarifications (fixed list, no enumeration), safety assurances (no port scanning), and usage context. There is no redundancy or filler; the structure is logical and information-dense without being bloated.

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?

For a security-check tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively covers what an agent needs: what paths are checked (.env, .git/config, backups), how the check works mechanically, what it does NOT do, the return format (0-100 score plus per-path findings), and the target domain constraints. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, nothing critical is missing.

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 the domain parameter is fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that bare domains work best and that IPs/emails/private hostnames are refused, but this largely duplicates schema guidance. The description adds minimal new semantic value beyond the schema, so a 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 opens with a specific question ('is this domain publicly serving files it should not be?') and a precise verb-resource pair (checks a fixed list of well-known sensitive paths). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating what it checks (exposed files like .env, .git/config, backups) and what it explicitly does NOT do ('does not discover subdomains'), setting it apart from check_subdomain_takeover and scan_domain.

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 clearly states when to use this tool ('Use this for leaked secrets, exposed configuration, or accidentally published files') and what it excludes ('does not discover subdomains'). It implies differentiation from sibling scan_domain by describing a narrow, fixed-path check rather than a full scan. It could explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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