checkMaliciousWebsite

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 implies a read-only operation ('check'), but doesn't specify data sources, accuracy limitations, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a security-checking tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 assessment tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'malicious activity,' how results are returned, or any limitations, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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 description mentions 'website' as the parameter, which aligns with the single parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add details like URL format requirements or validation rules. The baseline is appropriate given the single parameter, but it doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 purpose: checking if a website is associated with crypto scams or malicious activity. It uses specific verbs ('check') and identifies the resource ('website'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'checkMaliciousAddress' or 'scrapeWebContent', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it (e.g., for non-crypto-related checks) or reference sibling tools like 'checkMaliciousAddress' for address-specific checks, leaving usage context unclear.

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